The ArgusGreen Brighton and Hove councillor tells parliament councils need more powers to enforce speed limits (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Green Brighton and Hove councillor tells parliament councils need more powers to enforce speed limits

The Argus: Green Brighton and Hove councillor tells parliament councils need more powers to enforce speed limits Green Brighton and Hove councillor tells parliament councils need more powers to enforce speed limits

Councils should be given more powers to enforce speed limits, a city transport boss told the Commons yesterday.

Ian Davey, deputy leader and lead member for transport at Brighton and Hove City Council, was invited to give evidence on cycling safety before Parliament.

Speaking at a Transport Committee meeting in London, the Green councillor said although he favoured compliance over enforcement, it was “important” councils were given powers to enforce cyclist-friendly schemes like 20mph speed zones.

Asked whether the police worked in co-operation with the council to enforce such schemes, Councillor Davey said: “We work well with the police but they have their pressures.

“One of the problems in encouraging compliance is that people know a transgression won’t be enforced.

“That’s why it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities.”

Asked later whether there were problems with heavy goods vehicles and safety of cyclists in Brighton and Hove, Coun Davey said: “Yes, of course we have a problem and it is down to what local authorities can do with junction design, where the funds are available.

“But again it comes down to enforcement and having the powers to enforce manoeuvres at junctions. With that we can help make junctions safer.”

Former racing cyclist Chris Boardman MBE, now policy adviser for British Cycling, also gave evidence at the committee.

The panel, including representatives from the Local Government Association and Surrey County Council, were also quizzed about the reaction from motorists should local authorities be given more power to take control of enforcing transport policies.

Coun Davey suggested a default 20mph speed limit would improve road safety and save councils cash.

He also called for a national campaign to promote respect between cyclists and motorists and said the UK needed more money to improve road design.

Comments (118)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:45am Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Cllr Davey says......

"it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities"

Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing?
Cllr Davey says...... "it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities" Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing? Richada
  • Score: 54

10:49am Tue 11 Feb 14

The Prophet of Doom says...

Davey appears to have found his true vocation in the Council - holding a small and insignificant road sign.
Davey appears to have found his true vocation in the Council - holding a small and insignificant road sign. The Prophet of Doom
  • Score: 74

10:50am Tue 11 Feb 14

Withdean-er says...

Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate. Withdean-er
  • Score: -89

10:53am Tue 11 Feb 14

Take it Personally says...

Ian Davey -what a tit
Ian Davey -what a tit Take it Personally
  • Score: 82

11:02am Tue 11 Feb 14

Vigilia says...

“One of the problems in encouraging compliance is that people know a transgression won’t be enforced."

and don't your traveller chums know it!
“One of the problems in encouraging compliance is that people know a transgression won’t be enforced." and don't your traveller chums know it! Vigilia
  • Score: 76

11:05am Tue 11 Feb 14

Indigatio says...

The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes. Indigatio
  • Score: 78

11:05am Tue 11 Feb 14

taman says...

who do they think they are !!!
who do they think they are !!! taman
  • Score: 54

11:07am Tue 11 Feb 14

Indigatio says...

Vigilia wrote:
“One of the problems in encouraging compliance is that people know a transgression won’t be enforced."

and don't your traveller chums know it!
Oh so true Vigilia !
[quote][p][bold]Vigilia[/bold] wrote: “One of the problems in encouraging compliance is that people know a transgression won’t be enforced." and don't your traveller chums know it![/p][/quote]Oh so true Vigilia ! Indigatio
  • Score: 42

11:07am Tue 11 Feb 14

Crystal Ball says...

Are the Council looking to raise funds for the iSore?
Are the Council looking to raise funds for the iSore? Crystal Ball
  • Score: 46

11:09am Tue 11 Feb 14

taman says...

Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
go boil your head
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]go boil your head taman
  • Score: 48

11:10am Tue 11 Feb 14

peterthomas says...

Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
[quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code?? peterthomas
  • Score: 51

11:37am Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

I wish Cllr Davey would make up his mind - he and his chums have constantly claimed the new 20mph limits were enforceable but all of a sudden he thinks they're not ? So come on Cllr Davey - who is it you've lied to ? Us or the committee ?

He clearly doesn't understand the law either. The police enforce the law and someone breaking the speed limit is committing a criminal offense. If the council take over the enforcement it will de-criminalise speeding - is that what he really wants ?
I wish Cllr Davey would make up his mind - he and his chums have constantly claimed the new 20mph limits were enforceable but all of a sudden he thinks they're not ? So come on Cllr Davey - who is it you've lied to ? Us or the committee ? He clearly doesn't understand the law either. The police enforce the law and someone breaking the speed limit is committing a criminal offense. If the council take over the enforcement it will de-criminalise speeding - is that what he really wants ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 43

12:25pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 49

12:31pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BURIRAM says...

But will the cyclists stick to the limit and how will cameras identify the speeding cyclists.
But will the cyclists stick to the limit and how will cameras identify the speeding cyclists. BURIRAM
  • Score: 42

12:31pm Tue 11 Feb 14

bythepark says...

How about we start with 20mph zones in our parks. Some idiot nearly knocked my toddler son over as he zoomed past us in hove park on his bike.
How about we start with 20mph zones in our parks. Some idiot nearly knocked my toddler son over as he zoomed past us in hove park on his bike. bythepark
  • Score: 43

12:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
Yes, but Mr Davey isn't proposing anything to do to solve this. What he is doing is spending over a million pounds on signs that really mean nothing. There are areas where speeds need to be controlled, for example outside schools, money should be focussed there.

During the evidence yesterday Mr Davey sat next to someone from Surrey. He said just putting 20mph signs up were a waste of public money and wouldn't do that in Surrey. Meanwhile in Brighton that's what we've done and Mr Davey et al are planning to do more of the same.

Other councils find better ways of saving lives, accidents and money. Why not learn from them? Is the council being sponsored (or worse!) by sign making companies? They seem to be the major beneficiaries...
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]Yes, but Mr Davey isn't proposing anything to do to solve this. What he is doing is spending over a million pounds on signs that really mean nothing. There are areas where speeds need to be controlled, for example outside schools, money should be focussed there. During the evidence yesterday Mr Davey sat next to someone from Surrey. He said just putting 20mph signs up were a waste of public money and wouldn't do that in Surrey. Meanwhile in Brighton that's what we've done and Mr Davey et al are planning to do more of the same. Other councils find better ways of saving lives, accidents and money. Why not learn from them? Is the council being sponsored (or worse!) by sign making companies? They seem to be the major beneficiaries... NickBtn
  • Score: 37

1:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

p a t r i c k says...

peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -42

1:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

p a t r i c k says...

I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -45

1:08pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet. Fight_Back
  • Score: 33

1:09pm Tue 11 Feb 14

p a t r i c k says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -40

1:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

The last thing we need is the likes of Davey and chums wielding more enforcement powers over us.

Come 2015, we the people will use our enforcement powers on them!
The last thing we need is the likes of Davey and chums wielding more enforcement powers over us. Come 2015, we the people will use our enforcement powers on them! Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 38

1:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Indigatio says...

peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Same problem, not enough Police out on the streets.
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Same problem, not enough Police out on the streets. Indigatio
  • Score: 11

1:11pm Tue 11 Feb 14

fredaj says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
Speeding doesn't kill, for that you need to actually be hit by a car.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]Speeding doesn't kill, for that you need to actually be hit by a car. fredaj
  • Score: 23

1:14pm Tue 11 Feb 14

p a t r i c k says...

Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
People have a right to walk and cycle in the city without fear of being killed.

In the UK each year around 2500 people are killed directly by motorised vehicles.

Every safety agency will agree that as the speed of a vehicle increases the risk of death or injury to a pedestrian or cyclist also increases.

For vehicles to travel over 20 mph in a built up area is totally unnecessary and places lives at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]People have a right to walk and cycle in the city without fear of being killed. In the UK each year around 2500 people are killed directly by motorised vehicles. Every safety agency will agree that as the speed of a vehicle increases the risk of death or injury to a pedestrian or cyclist also increases. For vehicles to travel over 20 mph in a built up area is totally unnecessary and places lives at risk. p a t r i c k
  • Score: -27

1:22pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
People have a right to walk and cycle in the city without fear of being killed.

In the UK each year around 2500 people are killed directly by motorised vehicles.

Every safety agency will agree that as the speed of a vehicle increases the risk of death or injury to a pedestrian or cyclist also increases.

For vehicles to travel over 20 mph in a built up area is totally unnecessary and places lives at risk.
I note you avoided answering the question and instead continued to spout Green propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]People have a right to walk and cycle in the city without fear of being killed. In the UK each year around 2500 people are killed directly by motorised vehicles. Every safety agency will agree that as the speed of a vehicle increases the risk of death or injury to a pedestrian or cyclist also increases. For vehicles to travel over 20 mph in a built up area is totally unnecessary and places lives at risk.[/p][/quote]I note you avoided answering the question and instead continued to spout Green propaganda. Fight_Back
  • Score: 26

1:30pm Tue 11 Feb 14

cynic_the says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
MORE Trolls!? I thought they were starting to get bored.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]MORE Trolls!? I thought they were starting to get bored. cynic_the
  • Score: 16

1:31pm Tue 11 Feb 14

The Prophet of Doom says...

A large delivery of brown shirts is destined for Kings House...
A large delivery of brown shirts is destined for Kings House... The Prophet of Doom
  • Score: 19

1:40pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking.. J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 31

1:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

taman wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
go boil your head
Go smoke a car
[quote][p][bold]taman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]go boil your head[/p][/quote]Go smoke a car Gribbet
  • Score: -27

1:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

billy goat-gruff says...

The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations
. The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like?
The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations . The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like? billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -33

1:52pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims. Gribbet
  • Score: -31

2:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it. Gribbet
  • Score: -25

2:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations . The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like?
Where are the cliche ridden over generalisations?

Such as calling all drivers 'Petrol Heads' and that we all speed all of the time. Oh and that pedestrians all fear being killed when they walk.

Examples of the absolute bull**** spouted by the cycling brigade

Cut down pollution? Lower gear, more cars on the road as we're stuck in traffic jams caused by cycle lanes = More pollution

A child would also survive knowing how to cross the road properly..as we were taught to do.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations . The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like?[/p][/quote]Where are the cliche ridden over generalisations? Such as calling all drivers 'Petrol Heads' and that we all speed all of the time. Oh and that pedestrians all fear being killed when they walk. Examples of the absolute bull**** spouted by the cycling brigade Cut down pollution? Lower gear, more cars on the road as we're stuck in traffic jams caused by cycle lanes = More pollution A child would also survive knowing how to cross the road properly..as we were taught to do. J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 29

2:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 26

2:06pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
So what were they designed for when they were laid with tarmac, traffic lights and white lines?
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]So what were they designed for when they were laid with tarmac, traffic lights and white lines? J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 31

2:06pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented. Fight_Back
  • Score: 27

2:15pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented.
What about motorbikes? And which of the roads around the 20mph zones were designed specifically for cars?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented.[/p][/quote]What about motorbikes? And which of the roads around the 20mph zones were designed specifically for cars? Gribbet
  • Score: -18

2:16pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while.

Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it.

Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope. Andy R
  • Score: -28

2:21pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
So what were they designed for when they were laid with tarmac, traffic lights and white lines?
The roads were there and being used long before they were laid with tarmac.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]So what were they designed for when they were laid with tarmac, traffic lights and white lines?[/p][/quote]The roads were there and being used long before they were laid with tarmac. Gribbet
  • Score: -18

2:24pm Tue 11 Feb 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
Basically, yes, they were .... otherwise, the Greens wouldn't be spending millions putting in cycle lanes, taking over the roads used by cars. If you look closely, you'll see roads are covered with tarmac for cars to drive on. Meanwhile, pedestrians walk on the pavements. They're pretty safe there.

What needs to be done, in terms of road safety, is to teach children to cross the road properly. At present, they assume that it fine to drift across wherever and whenever they want.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]Basically, yes, they were .... otherwise, the Greens wouldn't be spending millions putting in cycle lanes, taking over the roads used by cars. If you look closely, you'll see roads are covered with tarmac for cars to drive on. Meanwhile, pedestrians walk on the pavements. They're pretty safe there. What needs to be done, in terms of road safety, is to teach children to cross the road properly. At present, they assume that it fine to drift across wherever and whenever they want. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 22

2:25pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Joshiman says...

quote"That’s why it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities.”
That will be a £1000 for minor offences if the Greens had their wayOf course only .Applying to motorists.
quote"That’s why it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities.” That will be a £1000 for minor offences if the Greens had their wayOf course only .Applying to motorists. Joshiman
  • Score: 20

2:30pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about? Gribbet
  • Score: -17

2:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
Basically, yes, they were .... otherwise, the Greens wouldn't be spending millions putting in cycle lanes, taking over the roads used by cars. If you look closely, you'll see roads are covered with tarmac for cars to drive on. Meanwhile, pedestrians walk on the pavements. They're pretty safe there.

What needs to be done, in terms of road safety, is to teach children to cross the road properly. At present, they assume that it fine to drift across wherever and whenever they want.
So what was there before the tarmac was laid? Could it be that there were already roads in place before tarmac and traffic lights were installed?
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]Basically, yes, they were .... otherwise, the Greens wouldn't be spending millions putting in cycle lanes, taking over the roads used by cars. If you look closely, you'll see roads are covered with tarmac for cars to drive on. Meanwhile, pedestrians walk on the pavements. They're pretty safe there. What needs to be done, in terms of road safety, is to teach children to cross the road properly. At present, they assume that it fine to drift across wherever and whenever they want.[/p][/quote]So what was there before the tarmac was laid? Could it be that there were already roads in place before tarmac and traffic lights were installed? Gribbet
  • Score: -22

2:49pm Tue 11 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-
hove.gov.uk/content/
parking-and-travel/t
ravel-transport-and-
road-safety/road-col
lision-and-casualty-
data
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 17

2:51pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Withdean-er says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations

. The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like?
Wow, wait a minute.
Don't let facts get in the way of petrol-heads arguments.

As has been pointed out by some 'clever' drivers on here, driving more slowly in town leads to more pollution, so obviously far better to drive in town at faster speeds. Sod the pedestrians, pets, pensioners, kids, cyclists, motorbike riders and anyone else not in a 1.5 tonne missile.

As for the arrogant comments that kids have no road sense unlike the good old days, and so implicitly it's their fault if they are run over, in the good old days there were far more road deaths. I remember at school being told in assemblies a couple of times that so-and-so would no longer be at school as they were run over and killed the previous evening. It was only through safety measures in cars and new laws with enforcement, that the numbers have come down. A laissez faire approach of trusting drivers just won't work.
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: The selfish petrol heads seem to be winning the comments war with their irrational hatred of cyclists and cliche-ridden over-generalisations . The two things to remember about the 20mph limits are that they saves lives - a child may survive being hit by a car travelling at less than 20mph - and they help cut down air pollution. What's not to like?[/p][/quote]Wow, wait a minute. Don't let facts get in the way of petrol-heads arguments. As has been pointed out by some 'clever' drivers on here, driving more slowly in town leads to more pollution, so obviously far better to drive in town at faster speeds. Sod the pedestrians, pets, pensioners, kids, cyclists, motorbike riders and anyone else not in a 1.5 tonne missile. As for the arrogant comments that kids have no road sense unlike the good old days, and so implicitly it's their fault if they are run over, in the good old days there were far more road deaths. I remember at school being told in assemblies a couple of times that so-and-so would no longer be at school as they were run over and killed the previous evening. It was only through safety measures in cars and new laws with enforcement, that the numbers have come down. A laissez faire approach of trusting drivers just won't work. Withdean-er
  • Score: -30

2:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Brighton Taxi Driver says...

The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too. Brighton Taxi Driver
  • Score: 32

2:59pm Tue 11 Feb 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

Davey wants more consideration between cyclists and Motorists? Well maybe not having a car hating zealot with massive connections to a local anti motorist and pro cyclist group in charge of transport is not the way forward even if unlike Davey they actually know what they are doing!
As to the Green planted Withdeaner It is not about driving at 70 knocking cyclists off their bikes or running over toddlers crossing the road it is about driving at a sensible speed for the conditions and being very aware of what is around you and shockingly for him the statistics show that 99.999% of drivers happily do that for their entire driving life.
Less than 15 months before the hapless Davey will be on his bike
Davey wants more consideration between cyclists and Motorists? Well maybe not having a car hating zealot with massive connections to a local anti motorist and pro cyclist group in charge of transport is not the way forward even if unlike Davey they actually know what they are doing! As to the Green planted Withdeaner It is not about driving at 70 knocking cyclists off their bikes or running over toddlers crossing the road it is about driving at a sensible speed for the conditions and being very aware of what is around you and shockingly for him the statistics show that 99.999% of drivers happily do that for their entire driving life. Less than 15 months before the hapless Davey will be on his bike upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 29

3:03pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Will they make a better fist of enforcing their 20 limits than they do of recycling or the bin rounds?

Maybe it is time that the council tax payers were empowered to enforce the council's contractual duty to provide services for all.

After all, I can chose if I walk, cycle, bus or drive - I have no choice as to provision of services though.

Rather than making a feeble attempt to grandstand on a national stage, I suggest that Mr Davey and his colleagues look towards what needs doing for all of us here - without doing so, quite simply, they won't be re-elected.......

......but then, the writing is already on the wall there so might as well slap a 20mph sign over the top of it anyway!
Will they make a better fist of enforcing their 20 limits than they do of recycling or the bin rounds? Maybe it is time that the council tax payers were empowered to enforce the council's contractual duty to provide services for all. After all, I can chose if I walk, cycle, bus or drive - I have no choice as to provision of services though. Rather than making a feeble attempt to grandstand on a national stage, I suggest that Mr Davey and his colleagues look towards what needs doing for all of us here - without doing so, quite simply, they won't be re-elected....... ......but then, the writing is already on the wall there so might as well slap a 20mph sign over the top of it anyway! Richada
  • Score: 22

3:11pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Strange how the Green supporters are yet to address the issue of Davey and his club claiming 20mph zones ARE enforceable to locals yet apparently not so when he stands in front of a government committee. It can only be one or the other and it clearly highlights the man as a LAIR !
Strange how the Green supporters are yet to address the issue of Davey and his club claiming 20mph zones ARE enforceable to locals yet apparently not so when he stands in front of a government committee. It can only be one or the other and it clearly highlights the man as a LAIR ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 22

3:18pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 20

4:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS......... Andy R
  • Score: -14

4:04pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well? Plantpot
  • Score: 16

4:10pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head
"Victimised". FFS.........
Whats your point Andy?

Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'?

You're losing the plot pal.

I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 17

4:14pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head
"Victimised". FFS.........
Whats your point Andy?

Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'?

You're losing the plot pal.

I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you
No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you[/p][/quote]No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was. Andy R
  • Score: -20

4:17pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van. Andy R
  • Score: -12

4:25pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-

hove.gov.uk/content/

parking-and-travel/t

ravel-transport-and-

road-safety/road-col

lision-and-casualty-

data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. Plantpot
  • Score: 12

4:26pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one. Plantpot
  • Score: 1

4:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Plantpot wrote:
I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot.

Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect? Richada
  • Score: 10

4:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc. Plantpot
  • Score: 11

4:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head
"Victimised". FFS.........
Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you
No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.
Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them.

Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you[/p][/quote]No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.[/p][/quote]Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them. Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 6

4:37pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head
"Victimised". FFS.........
Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you
No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.
Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them.

Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you
"Displaying the tendencies of a Green Party member".....despite not being one.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you[/p][/quote]No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.[/p][/quote]Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them. Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you[/p][/quote]"Displaying the tendencies of a Green Party member".....despite not being one. Andy R
  • Score: -8

4:41pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
"How do they get about?"

Is that a serious question?
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.[/p][/quote]"How do they get about?" Is that a serious question? Andy R
  • Score: -9

4:48pm Tue 11 Feb 14

J_Brightonandhove says...

Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head
"Victimised". FFS.........
Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you
No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.
Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them. Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you
"Displaying the tendencies of a Green Party member".....despite not being one.
You really aren't all there are you.

I didn't say you were a green party member. I said 'displaying tendencies of one'

Jesus If you're going to debate atleast read what I'm saying
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]Whats your point Andy? Are the bike brigade not calling ALL drivers (safe drivers included) petrol heads? Is my 80 year old dad who still drives probably below 20mph a 'petrol head'? You're losing the plot pal. I recommend a nice bike ride to clear your head. Old Shoreham Road cycle lane in particular is a pleasant ride, you won't get any other cyclists bothering you[/p][/quote]No, I'm very clear about who a petrolhead is, thanks. It's not all drivers; never said it was.[/p][/quote]Again, go back and re-read. I said the Bike Brigade are labelling all drivers petrol heads. Not you're labelling them. Although you are displaying tendencies of a green party member, only seeing what you want to see and not actually seeing whats infront of you[/p][/quote]"Displaying the tendencies of a Green Party member".....despite not being one.[/p][/quote]You really aren't all there are you. I didn't say you were a green party member. I said 'displaying tendencies of one' Jesus If you're going to debate atleast read what I'm saying J_Brightonandhove
  • Score: 7

4:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot.

Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific.

I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati
onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users..

The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?[/p][/quote]The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict. Plantpot
  • Score: 19

5:19pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
"How do they get about?"

Is that a serious question?
Of course. Read my note. Beyond strictly local travel, public transport gets very expensive. I have a relative that doesn't drive who lives away from Brighton. They have to shop every 1 or 2 days because they can't walk a couple of miles with a weeks shopping. Any journey anywhere beyond the immediate locale involves cabs, buses or trains, all of which are expensive and need planning. If you want to drive somewhere you hire a car, which is generally very expensive. If you want things delivered they get driven to you. This is great if you have plenty of time and money on your hands Etc. etc.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.[/p][/quote]"How do they get about?" Is that a serious question?[/p][/quote]Of course. Read my note. Beyond strictly local travel, public transport gets very expensive. I have a relative that doesn't drive who lives away from Brighton. They have to shop every 1 or 2 days because they can't walk a couple of miles with a weeks shopping. Any journey anywhere beyond the immediate locale involves cabs, buses or trains, all of which are expensive and need planning. If you want to drive somewhere you hire a car, which is generally very expensive. If you want things delivered they get driven to you. This is great if you have plenty of time and money on your hands Etc. etc. Plantpot
  • Score: 7

5:26pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Still no Green supporter prepared to answer the question around if the 20mph zone is or isn't enforceable. I guess they are as confused as Davey. Either that or they're too busy called people "petrolheads".

So if that question is too difficult then lets try another one - given even the Greens know nobody will vote for the 4.75% increase in council tax, from which budget will the costs of the referendum come ( £230k - £900k depending on who you believe ) ? Despite being asked this question numerous times no Green member or support has answered it either.
Still no Green supporter prepared to answer the question around if the 20mph zone is or isn't enforceable. I guess they are as confused as Davey. Either that or they're too busy called people "petrolheads". So if that question is too difficult then lets try another one - given even the Greens know nobody will vote for the 4.75% increase in council tax, from which budget will the costs of the referendum come ( £230k - £900k depending on who you believe ) ? Despite being asked this question numerous times no Green member or support has answered it either. Fight_Back
  • Score: 13

5:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

taman says...

The Prophet of Doom wrote:
Davey appears to have found his true vocation in the Council - holding a small and insignificant road sign.
That sign hes holding is the number of drivers who are actually sticking to the his ridiculous speed limit ..and he no doubt is one of. them and i don't think he should be included so really it should read 19
[quote][p][bold]The Prophet of Doom[/bold] wrote: Davey appears to have found his true vocation in the Council - holding a small and insignificant road sign.[/p][/quote]That sign hes holding is the number of drivers who are actually sticking to the his ridiculous speed limit ..and he no doubt is one of. them and i don't think he should be included so really it should read 19 taman
  • Score: 11

5:54pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BrightonHoveboy says...

Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How many people own a powered two wheeler? ie, a motorcycle or scooter? Far better and cheaper way around and always the forgotten answer to congestion.Just don't associate them with idiot cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How many people own a powered two wheeler? ie, a motorcycle or scooter? Far better and cheaper way around and always the forgotten answer to congestion.Just don't associate them with idiot cyclists. BrightonHoveboy
  • Score: 7

6:31pm Tue 11 Feb 14

We are the 99% says...

Day of Action against these Green tyrants!
Saturday 15th February.
Boycott Brighton!
Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign!
Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH!
Enough is enough!
Day of Action against these Green tyrants! Saturday 15th February. Boycott Brighton! Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign! Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH! Enough is enough! We are the 99%
  • Score: 6

6:57pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
Its winter, Get the bus plonker,
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]Its winter, Get the bus plonker, ARMANA
  • Score: 3

6:59pm Tue 11 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
VARROOOOMM, LOL
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.[/p][/quote]VARROOOOMM, LOL ARMANA
  • Score: 3

7:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Richada wrote:
Cllr Davey says......

"it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities"

Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing?
The Greens would be queueing up to be the ones to enforce something on drivers. And it's not their money so why should they worry about where it comes from, they are blase enough about the traveller community budget going £200,000 over budget, and paying the slaries and expenses for TEN people to sit on a consultitative committee (and may be still paying for all we know) in an attempt to impose illegal 'shooting galleries' on the City.
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: Cllr Davey says...... "it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities" Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing?[/p][/quote]The Greens would be queueing up to be the ones to enforce something on drivers. And it's not their money so why should they worry about where it comes from, they are blase enough about the traveller community budget going £200,000 over budget, and paying the slaries and expenses for TEN people to sit on a consultitative committee (and may be still paying for all we know) in an attempt to impose illegal 'shooting galleries' on the City. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 10

7:42pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
Spot on, shame Dozy Davey and his Green Slime friends didn't bother talking to someone sensible like you before setting out on their bid to bring Brighton and Hove to a standstill.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]Spot on, shame Dozy Davey and his Green Slime friends didn't bother talking to someone sensible like you before setting out on their bid to bring Brighton and Hove to a standstill. Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 10

7:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Plantpot wrote:
Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot.

Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific.

I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati

onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users..

The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.
As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's.

This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists".

Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?[/p][/quote]The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.[/p][/quote]As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's. This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists". Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment. Richada
  • Score: 17

7:48pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Idontbelieveit1948 wrote:
Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
Spot on, shame Dozy Davey and his Green Slime friends didn't bother talking to someone sensible like you before setting out on their bid to bring Brighton and Hove to a standstill.
I rather suspect that even if they had listened to the voice of reason - a professional road user in this case - their ideology would have blinded them to the simple and obvious logic of it all anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Idontbelieveit1948[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]Spot on, shame Dozy Davey and his Green Slime friends didn't bother talking to someone sensible like you before setting out on their bid to bring Brighton and Hove to a standstill.[/p][/quote]I rather suspect that even if they had listened to the voice of reason - a professional road user in this case - their ideology would have blinded them to the simple and obvious logic of it all anyway. Richada
  • Score: 6

7:56pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Richada says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Richada wrote:
Cllr Davey says......

"it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities"

Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing?
The Greens would be queueing up to be the ones to enforce something on drivers. And it's not their money so why should they worry about where it comes from, they are blase enough about the traveller community budget going £200,000 over budget, and paying the slaries and expenses for TEN people to sit on a consultitative committee (and may be still paying for all we know) in an attempt to impose illegal 'shooting galleries' on the City.
Actually I engaged fingers before brain on that initial comment. Unless every driver in Brighton adhered strictly to their 20 limit, this would be self financing and self perpetuating, with more and more cameras going up city wide - as will the crime rates as the police withdraw from the streets completely.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: Cllr Davey says...... "it’s important moving traffic offences be given to local authorities. It is essential those powers come to local authorities" Oh, and just who in "local authority" is going to do this and how much is it going to cost the council to impose this second tier of policing?[/p][/quote]The Greens would be queueing up to be the ones to enforce something on drivers. And it's not their money so why should they worry about where it comes from, they are blase enough about the traveller community budget going £200,000 over budget, and paying the slaries and expenses for TEN people to sit on a consultitative committee (and may be still paying for all we know) in an attempt to impose illegal 'shooting galleries' on the City.[/p][/quote]Actually I engaged fingers before brain on that initial comment. Unless every driver in Brighton adhered strictly to their 20 limit, this would be self financing and self perpetuating, with more and more cameras going up city wide - as will the crime rates as the police withdraw from the streets completely. Richada
  • Score: 0

8:08pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I bet Davey's colleague Bill Randall didn't drive at 20mph when he drove the freebie mayoral car to London and Bexhill.
Why won't the Greens tell us why Bill drove to these places when there's excellent rail links. Did Bill drive up the M23 at 20mph?
Come on Greens, are the roads just for Greens or Green supporting students? Well you are offering 550 student parking spaces on Preston barracks just months after opening the bus lane claiming you are improving transport to the unis.
Laughable liars.
I bet Davey's colleague Bill Randall didn't drive at 20mph when he drove the freebie mayoral car to London and Bexhill. Why won't the Greens tell us why Bill drove to these places when there's excellent rail links. Did Bill drive up the M23 at 20mph? Come on Greens, are the roads just for Greens or Green supporting students? Well you are offering 550 student parking spaces on Preston barracks just months after opening the bus lane claiming you are improving transport to the unis. Laughable liars. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 12

8:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

posthuman says...

It would seem that there are too many labels applied to each singular road user type..
He/she who drives only drives? or he/she who walks is 'only' a pedestrian....and so on & so on.
I drive, walk and cycle (not all at the same time) and I see all types of errors displayed by ALL road users. No one is perfect. So why the constant bashing on one another's choice of transport modes. A snapshot unfounded judgement placed upon each individual actions on whatever mode is the constant eroding factor here. Seems pointless all in all.
It would seem that there are too many labels applied to each singular road user type.. He/she who drives only drives? or he/she who walks is 'only' a pedestrian....and so on & so on. I drive, walk and cycle (not all at the same time) and I see all types of errors displayed by ALL road users. No one is perfect. So why the constant bashing on one another's choice of transport modes. A snapshot unfounded judgement placed upon each individual actions on whatever mode is the constant eroding factor here. Seems pointless all in all. posthuman
  • Score: 11

9:37pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

posthuman wrote:
It would seem that there are too many labels applied to each singular road user type..
He/she who drives only drives? or he/she who walks is 'only' a pedestrian....and so on & so on.
I drive, walk and cycle (not all at the same time) and I see all types of errors displayed by ALL road users. No one is perfect. So why the constant bashing on one another's choice of transport modes. A snapshot unfounded judgement placed upon each individual actions on whatever mode is the constant eroding factor here. Seems pointless all in all.
The bashing of all motorists by cyclists is designed to generate revenue for pro-cycle anti-car schemes.
[quote][p][bold]posthuman[/bold] wrote: It would seem that there are too many labels applied to each singular road user type.. He/she who drives only drives? or he/she who walks is 'only' a pedestrian....and so on & so on. I drive, walk and cycle (not all at the same time) and I see all types of errors displayed by ALL road users. No one is perfect. So why the constant bashing on one another's choice of transport modes. A snapshot unfounded judgement placed upon each individual actions on whatever mode is the constant eroding factor here. Seems pointless all in all.[/p][/quote]The bashing of all motorists by cyclists is designed to generate revenue for pro-cycle anti-car schemes. Plantpot
  • Score: 5

1:18am Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving.

Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving. Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races. Gribbet
  • Score: -10

1:47am Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS!

Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs.

I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.[/p][/quote]"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS! Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs. I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

8:32am Wed 12 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.
As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's. This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists". Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment.
Yes you are a fully paid up member of the moanerati.

The Argus has always stirred up conflict between cyclists and motorists for as long as I have lived in Brighton, which is longer than 10 years. What has changed in recent years is that a tiny proportion of the transport budget and a tiny proportion of road space has been redistributed to encourage cycling and bus use.

Sadly, there is a small hardcore of you that cannot accept that purely relying on the car is now a discredited idea and we need to move on. Cycling, including the use of electric bikes for example, ticks many boxes such as reducing congestion and pollution, reducing journey times for inner-city journies, providing a life-long healthy pursuit, a partial solution to our obesity crisis etc, etc. The steadily increasing and improving bus services offer a better inner urban solution for high density travel than largely single occupancy cars. The bus fleet is becoming steadily cleaner and more efficient, not fast enough for my liking, but it is moving in a poitive direction nonetheless. The introduction of the 20mph zones may rile the "do what I like"ers, but it makes the roads and pavements far more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians.

We have to plan for the future not the past. During my time in this fantastic city I have noticed a trend of cars becoming bigger as they are replaced, residents demanding and getting controlled parking zones (a trend that will continue), the city has grown and is proposed to grow by 11000 households at least (20000+ if the government has its way). For cars, the city is full, it is unlikely it get any better and if we do not do something about it, otherwise, as the city continues to grow, things will just get progressively worse. Those constantly ranting against bus users and cyclists live in a dream world and need to start growing up to face the challenges that the city faces!
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?[/p][/quote]The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.[/p][/quote]As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's. This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists". Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment.[/p][/quote]Yes you are a fully paid up member of the moanerati. The Argus has always stirred up conflict between cyclists and motorists for as long as I have lived in Brighton, which is longer than 10 years. What has changed in recent years is that a tiny proportion of the transport budget and a tiny proportion of road space has been redistributed to encourage cycling and bus use. Sadly, there is a small hardcore of you that cannot accept that purely relying on the car is now a discredited idea and we need to move on. Cycling, including the use of electric bikes for example, ticks many boxes such as reducing congestion and pollution, reducing journey times for inner-city journies, providing a life-long healthy pursuit, a partial solution to our obesity crisis etc, etc. The steadily increasing and improving bus services offer a better inner urban solution for high density travel than largely single occupancy cars. The bus fleet is becoming steadily cleaner and more efficient, not fast enough for my liking, but it is moving in a poitive direction nonetheless. The introduction of the 20mph zones may rile the "do what I like"ers, but it makes the roads and pavements far more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians. We have to plan for the future not the past. During my time in this fantastic city I have noticed a trend of cars becoming bigger as they are replaced, residents demanding and getting controlled parking zones (a trend that will continue), the city has grown and is proposed to grow by 11000 households at least (20000+ if the government has its way). For cars, the city is full, it is unlikely it get any better and if we do not do something about it, otherwise, as the city continues to grow, things will just get progressively worse. Those constantly ranting against bus users and cyclists live in a dream world and need to start growing up to face the challenges that the city faces! HJarrs
  • Score: -9

9:32am Wed 12 Feb 14

IndigoTram says...

Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-


hove.gov.uk/content/


parking-and-travel/t


ravel-transport-and-


road-safety/road-col


lision-and-casualty-


data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
Plantpot
If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1).

For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2).

That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


(1) http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/advicean
dinformation/cycling
/facts-figures.aspx
(2) http://transact.west
minster.gov.uk/CSU/P
olicy_and_Scrutiny_C
ommittees/Current_P_
and_S_Committees/Env
ironment/2013/25%20A
pril%202013/Item%206
%20App%203%20DRAFT%2
0Westminster%20Cycli
ng%20Strategy%202013
%20v5%20for%20commit
tee.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote] I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1). For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2). That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. (1) http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/cycling /facts-figures.aspx (2) http://transact.west minster.gov.uk/CSU/P olicy_and_Scrutiny_C ommittees/Current_P_ and_S_Committees/Env ironment/2013/25%20A pril%202013/Item%206 %20App%203%20DRAFT%2 0Westminster%20Cycli ng%20Strategy%202013 %20v5%20for%20commit tee.pdf IndigoTram
  • Score: 3

9:54am Wed 12 Feb 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS!

Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs.

I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one.
Odd that this last post gets a thumbs down!

I disagree with a lot of what you have to say Gribbett, but this post is a VERY good one.

Car usage, bycycle usage - any use of the roads is down to personal choice and circumstances. We're all different and have different needs privately and professionally. We all share and use the same roadspace.

For many of us the reasons for car ownership are deminishing. My own annual mileage has fallen from 22,000 in 2000 to just under 13,000 last year, partly thanks to factors that you hilight here - particularly with regards to internet shopping / deliveries, but also, the business mileage thanks to much better communications via electronic media.

On the other hand, particularly in the northern suburbs, we do not all live in areas convenient, or well served by public transport, and, being over 50, good though my health may be, cycling on these hills in all weathers is not an option.

You offer several good reasons for non-car ownership here, which, dependant on circumstances, make very good sense.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.[/p][/quote]"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS! Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs. I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one.[/p][/quote]Odd that this last post gets a thumbs down! I disagree with a lot of what you have to say Gribbett, but this post is a VERY good one. Car usage, bycycle usage - any use of the roads is down to personal choice and circumstances. We're all different and have different needs privately and professionally. We all share and use the same roadspace. For many of us the reasons for car ownership are deminishing. My own annual mileage has fallen from 22,000 in 2000 to just under 13,000 last year, partly thanks to factors that you hilight here - particularly with regards to internet shopping / deliveries, but also, the business mileage thanks to much better communications via electronic media. On the other hand, particularly in the northern suburbs, we do not all live in areas convenient, or well served by public transport, and, being over 50, good though my health may be, cycling on these hills in all weathers is not an option. You offer several good reasons for non-car ownership here, which, dependant on circumstances, make very good sense. Richada
  • Score: 0

9:59am Wed 12 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-



hove.gov.uk/content/



parking-and-travel/t



ravel-transport-and-



road-safety/road-col



lision-and-casualty-



data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
Plantpot
If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1).

For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2).

That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


(1) http://www.rospa.com

/roadsafety/advicean

dinformation/cycling

/facts-figures.aspx
(2) http://transact.west

minster.gov.uk/CSU/P

olicy_and_Scrutiny_C

ommittees/Current_P_

and_S_Committees/Env

ironment/2013/25%20A

pril%202013/Item%206

%20App%203%20DRAFT%2

0Westminster%20Cycli

ng%20Strategy%202013

%20v5%20for%20commit

tee.pdf
The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.
[quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote] I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1). For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2). That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. (1) http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/cycling /facts-figures.aspx (2) http://transact.west minster.gov.uk/CSU/P olicy_and_Scrutiny_C ommittees/Current_P_ and_S_Committees/Env ironment/2013/25%20A pril%202013/Item%206 %20App%203%20DRAFT%2 0Westminster%20Cycli ng%20Strategy%202013 %20v5%20for%20commit tee.pdf[/p][/quote]The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are. Plantpot
  • Score: 2

10:01am Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.
If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented.
Were there many cars in Victorian times then?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]Were the roads of Brighton designed for cars? Think about it.[/p][/quote]If you're seriously suggesting that a majority of the roads in the city today were designed for either horse and cart or pedestrians then you're more deranged than HJarrs. A vast majority of our roads were built once the motor car had been invented.[/p][/quote]Were there many cars in Victorian times then? Gribbet
  • Score: -1

10:04am Wed 12 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

Gribbet wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
Andy R wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.
Who's said the roads aren't for sharing?

I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read.

I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless.

You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end.

Love

Petrol Head
"Victimised".

FFS.........
When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?
2011 Census.

38.2% of households do not own a car or van.
How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.
"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS!

Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs.

I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one.
Whilst you may not own a car, when it suits you, you drive by proxy, for example when having food or other items delivered, take a taxi etc. As a car owner, I don't drive that much in B&H anymore, instead I take my spending elsewhere. I would avoid the train like the plague for long distances for reasons of cost. I avoid public transport whenever possible. I like to be in control of when and where I go. As I own a car I want to get good use of it.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]Maybe the petrolhead comments will stop when some motorists commenting stop writing as though they've been inhaling what they should be putting in the tank. The self-entitled whining on here sets the teeth on edge after a while. Over a third of city residents don't own a car. The roads are for sharing - get used to it. Who's actually stopping you from driving? Yep, that's right. no-one. If you're "frightened" by one bloke's opinion on transport, I'd suggest you stop going out at all. You just won't be able to cope.[/p][/quote]Who's said the roads aren't for sharing? I also said 'one blokes' opinion was 'frightening', not that I'm frightened, there's a substantial difference. You might want to go back and have a re-read. I also didn't say anyone was stopping me from driving. I've made the point that drivers are being victimised for the simple fact that we drive and I'll do it regardless. You simply can't face that you're in the minority and in May 2015 these loony idea's will be at an end. Love Petrol Head[/p][/quote]"Victimised". FFS.........[/p][/quote]When you say over a third of residents don't own a car, where do you get your stats from? Do you mean a third of residents that are eligible for a driving license? Or are you including children as well?[/p][/quote]2011 Census. 38.2% of households do not own a car or van.[/p][/quote]How do they get about? Every journey beyond a certain distance becomes a major decision, and with the cost of public transport, expensive. I guess they drive by proxy, i.e. have food delivered, use taxis, car club etc.[/p][/quote]"How do they get about?" HILARIOUS! Walking, cycling, bus, rental cars, ever heard of trains for long distances? No annual hit to the pocket of servicing, MOT, tax, insurance, no petrol costs. I sold my car in 2010 because I wasn't using it enough to justify the expense (and already cycling nearly double the milage as I was clocking in the car) and although I miss it for sentimental reasons, I don't regret it. I can get to London and back on the train for around £15, I can rent a car if I need to on special offer on price comparison websites very cheaply, nice different car to try every time. Small food shops on foot or by bike, big shops delivered by whichever of the supermarkets has offered me a £10 off voucher to keep me sweet. I realise it's a different story for many people who need the car because they have kids or other important reasons, however there are many people such as myself who could be reducing traffic on the roads, while improving their bank balances. Selling my car was like having a pay rise. In future I might buy car again if I really need one, but for now I'm surprisingly better off without one.[/p][/quote]Whilst you may not own a car, when it suits you, you drive by proxy, for example when having food or other items delivered, take a taxi etc. As a car owner, I don't drive that much in B&H anymore, instead I take my spending elsewhere. I would avoid the train like the plague for long distances for reasons of cost. I avoid public transport whenever possible. I like to be in control of when and where I go. As I own a car I want to get good use of it. Plantpot
  • Score: 5

10:22am Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

The guy who delivers my shopping has about 20 other people's shopping in his van, so I guess there's a lot of us crammed into the driver's seat of that vehicle by proxy.
The guy who delivers my shopping has about 20 other people's shopping in his van, so I guess there's a lot of us crammed into the driver's seat of that vehicle by proxy. Gribbet
  • Score: 1

10:25am Wed 12 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Gribbet wrote:
Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving.

Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.
So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road.

A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same.

I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet!
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving. Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.[/p][/quote]So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road. A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same. I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet! thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 6

10:36am Wed 12 Feb 14

Richada says...

HJarrs wrote:
Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.
As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's. This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists". Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment.
Yes you are a fully paid up member of the moanerati.

The Argus has always stirred up conflict between cyclists and motorists for as long as I have lived in Brighton, which is longer than 10 years. What has changed in recent years is that a tiny proportion of the transport budget and a tiny proportion of road space has been redistributed to encourage cycling and bus use.

Sadly, there is a small hardcore of you that cannot accept that purely relying on the car is now a discredited idea and we need to move on. Cycling, including the use of electric bikes for example, ticks many boxes such as reducing congestion and pollution, reducing journey times for inner-city journies, providing a life-long healthy pursuit, a partial solution to our obesity crisis etc, etc. The steadily increasing and improving bus services offer a better inner urban solution for high density travel than largely single occupancy cars. The bus fleet is becoming steadily cleaner and more efficient, not fast enough for my liking, but it is moving in a poitive direction nonetheless. The introduction of the 20mph zones may rile the "do what I like"ers, but it makes the roads and pavements far more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians.

We have to plan for the future not the past. During my time in this fantastic city I have noticed a trend of cars becoming bigger as they are replaced, residents demanding and getting controlled parking zones (a trend that will continue), the city has grown and is proposed to grow by 11000 households at least (20000+ if the government has its way). For cars, the city is full, it is unlikely it get any better and if we do not do something about it, otherwise, as the city continues to grow, things will just get progressively worse. Those constantly ranting against bus users and cyclists live in a dream world and need to start growing up to face the challenges that the city faces!
Sadly, what you have "noticed" - i.e. cars becoming bigger, is simply not supported by the statistics of new car sales. The trend is towards downsizing and has been for the last ten years.

Apart from a tiny (but I hope you would agree) important minority of severely diabled residents, NONE of us are "purely relying on the car".

I'm sorry, but the idea that cycling is going to have an impact on the current obesity crisis is pretty tenious to say the least. No, cyclists are not a group who are obese, but then those who are, are hardly likely to take to cycling in order to reduce their weight.

And who here is "constantly ranting against bus users"?

One columnist at the Argus - Adam Trimmingham - has always championed bycycle use, ever since I can remember going back, probably, to the 1970's and no, there was NOT the hatred between various road user groups then.

So, in a nutshell, the Greens policy then is to foster increasing unrest between different sectors of the community, in order to justify your own ideological hatred of the motor car.

The Greens came here on a crusade to save us all from ourselves, what have they done? Dug themselves one VERY big hole.

Fortunately, it is not the vast majority of Brighton and Hove residents living in a dream world, but YOU HJarrs.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?[/p][/quote]The accident stats for motorcycles are horrific. I think that cycling has become very politicised in Brighton particularly and whenever I read comments from the cycling lobby, I see them not as the solution, but as a huge part of the problem. Especially here in Brighton & Hove they come across as being incredibly militant/confrontati onal and as much anti-car as they are pro-cycling. People don't like being told what to do and when to do it, especially by a very tiny minority. What I find interesting is that roads are designed for sharing and that there are rules for doing this. Cyclists however want dedicated space wholly out of proportion to their numbers at extraordinary cost per capita. This gets people's backs up as the space is taken from the overwhelming majority of road users.. The fact is that most motorists drive perfectly sensibly according to the conditions, and mostly continue to be extremely considerate of cyclists. I can't think that any motorist wants a cyclists death or injury on their conscience, nor that of a pedestrian. We all have a duty of care to each other. This can be best expressed by everyone following the Highway Code. I worry (though not for myself) that this constant confrontation will cause both cyclists and car drivers to be less careful about following the rules of the road and bring them into further unnecessary conflict.[/p][/quote]As a pedestrian and motorist / bus user I have to say that your comments here very much support my observations around this city that I have known since the 1960's. This "militancy" amongst the factions is actually becoming a very real worry to many of us who consider ourselves as "road users" rather than "motorists" or "cyclists". Many on this site (but not in real life) may label me as an inbread moanerati member, but the truth of it is that 10 years ago, this widespread antagonism between different types of road users did not exist, a fact that leads me to the sad conclusion that Mr Davey and his cohorts have done everything they can in order to bring this about to suit their own political experiment.[/p][/quote]Yes you are a fully paid up member of the moanerati. The Argus has always stirred up conflict between cyclists and motorists for as long as I have lived in Brighton, which is longer than 10 years. What has changed in recent years is that a tiny proportion of the transport budget and a tiny proportion of road space has been redistributed to encourage cycling and bus use. Sadly, there is a small hardcore of you that cannot accept that purely relying on the car is now a discredited idea and we need to move on. Cycling, including the use of electric bikes for example, ticks many boxes such as reducing congestion and pollution, reducing journey times for inner-city journies, providing a life-long healthy pursuit, a partial solution to our obesity crisis etc, etc. The steadily increasing and improving bus services offer a better inner urban solution for high density travel than largely single occupancy cars. The bus fleet is becoming steadily cleaner and more efficient, not fast enough for my liking, but it is moving in a poitive direction nonetheless. The introduction of the 20mph zones may rile the "do what I like"ers, but it makes the roads and pavements far more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians. We have to plan for the future not the past. During my time in this fantastic city I have noticed a trend of cars becoming bigger as they are replaced, residents demanding and getting controlled parking zones (a trend that will continue), the city has grown and is proposed to grow by 11000 households at least (20000+ if the government has its way). For cars, the city is full, it is unlikely it get any better and if we do not do something about it, otherwise, as the city continues to grow, things will just get progressively worse. Those constantly ranting against bus users and cyclists live in a dream world and need to start growing up to face the challenges that the city faces![/p][/quote]Sadly, what you have "noticed" - i.e. cars becoming bigger, is simply not supported by the statistics of new car sales. The trend is towards downsizing and has been for the last ten years. Apart from a tiny (but I hope you would agree) important minority of severely diabled residents, NONE of us are "purely relying on the car". I'm sorry, but the idea that cycling is going to have an impact on the current obesity crisis is pretty tenious to say the least. No, cyclists are not a group who are obese, but then those who are, are hardly likely to take to cycling in order to reduce their weight. And who here is "constantly ranting against bus users"? One columnist at the Argus - Adam Trimmingham - has always championed bycycle use, ever since I can remember going back, probably, to the 1970's and no, there was NOT the hatred between various road user groups then. So, in a nutshell, the Greens policy then is to foster increasing unrest between different sectors of the community, in order to justify your own ideological hatred of the motor car. The Greens came here on a crusade to save us all from ourselves, what have they done? Dug themselves one VERY big hole. Fortunately, it is not the vast majority of Brighton and Hove residents living in a dream world, but YOU HJarrs. Richada
  • Score: 9

11:27am Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving.

Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.
So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road.

A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same.

I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet!
You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here.

Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving. Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.[/p][/quote]So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road. A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same. I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet![/p][/quote]You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here. Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

11:34am Wed 12 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

J_Brightonandhove wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
J_Brightonandhove wrote:
So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one.

His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless.

If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads'

And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest
The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph.
Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists.
People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed.

The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle.
Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.
Patrick: -

The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous.

Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary?

Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry.

When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..
You are incorrect , in older towns such as Brighton the road system was mainly laid out before the era of the motor car. So the roads cannot be designed for cars. Rather they were designed for horse drawn vehicles and bicycles, a much older invention than the car.
Of course new towns such as Crawley, were designed with the car in mind.
Also why shouldn't you be able to cycle in your 60's? Its never to late to start taking some exercise.
[quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_Brightonandhove[/bold] wrote: So councillor Davey wants to make policing traffic policital and based on need of the Council. Essentially, if they fancy another cycle lane, they'll put loads of cameras everywhere and raise a fortune until they have enough to build one. His view on transport is frightening. No matter how many cycle lanes, no matter how 'safe' the roads are with these pointless 20mph zones people are simply not going to go out, buy a bike and start cycling. We don't have the climate for it, we have an ageing population, we have low wages in B&H so people work in area's outside it - too far to cycle, we have shoppers where it isn't feasibly to carry shopping bags on a bike, we have mothers and children etc the list is endless. If you can cycle, great, go ahead. But you're the minority and the fact you think we're all 'petrol heads' is embarrassing. Maybe we should put a roller blade lane over your cycle lane? Or allow Mopeds to use the lane? It'd be interesting to see the reaction as you're all so keen to 'share the roads' And seriously with the petrol head comments...give it a rest[/p][/quote]The issue here is reducing the speed of traffic to 20 mph. Cars and lorries travelling faster than 20 mph are a risk to the lives of pedestrians and cyclists. People have a right to walk or cycle in their city without fear of being killed. The vast majority of car journeys are unnecessary and would easily be performed by bicycle. Increasing the amount of cycling will reduce the massive cost to the NHS of treating the illnesses associated with obesity and high blood pressure.[/p][/quote]Patrick: - The issue is the plain and simple fact that 20mph signs don't work. Your wild exaggerations are incorrect, the majority of pedestrians don't feel like they're going to be killed. Thats ridiculous. Who are you to say what car journeys are necessary? Why should we be forced to cycle? So if it's freezing cold and rainy and I want to pick up some dinner; is that unnecessary? Us drivers have the right not to be victimised to use the roads that were designed for...CARS. I don't speed, I don't drive dangerously but what I will do is Drive when I want. I don't want to cycle, it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And before you comment about me being lazy etc I go to the gym (drive there ;) ) and play sports regularly so I'm not a burden to anyone as are most of the drivers you're trying to claim are bleeding the NHS dry. When you're in your 60's and are unable to cycle, I'd love to remind you of those unnecessary car journeys I'm sure you'll be taking..[/p][/quote]You are incorrect , in older towns such as Brighton the road system was mainly laid out before the era of the motor car. So the roads cannot be designed for cars. Rather they were designed for horse drawn vehicles and bicycles, a much older invention than the car. Of course new towns such as Crawley, were designed with the car in mind. Also why shouldn't you be able to cycle in your 60's? Its never to late to start taking some exercise. gheese77
  • Score: -2

11:42am Wed 12 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

We are the 99% wrote:
Day of Action against these Green tyrants!
Saturday 15th February.
Boycott Brighton!
Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign!
Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH!
Enough is enough!
You are the 1 % more like - bet I don't see any difference when I am at the shops on Saturday
[quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: Day of Action against these Green tyrants! Saturday 15th February. Boycott Brighton! Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign! Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH! Enough is enough![/p][/quote]You are the 1 % more like - bet I don't see any difference when I am at the shops on Saturday gheese77
  • Score: -1

11:44am Wed 12 Feb 14

gheese77 says...

We are the 99% wrote:
Day of Action against these Green tyrants!
Saturday 15th February.
Boycott Brighton!
Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign!
Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH!
Enough is enough!
You are the 1% more like - Bet there wont be any difference in footfall at the shops on those dates
[quote][p][bold]We are the 99%[/bold] wrote: Day of Action against these Green tyrants! Saturday 15th February. Boycott Brighton! Boycott Brighton shops and shopping centre until these Green tyrants resign! Followed by EVERY last Saturday in EVERY MONTH! Enough is enough![/p][/quote]You are the 1% more like - Bet there wont be any difference in footfall at the shops on those dates gheese77
  • Score: -1

11:47am Wed 12 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Gribbet wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving.

Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.
So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road.

A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same.

I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet!
You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here.

Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally.
Well as a cyclist, surely this motorist v cyclist thing doesn't benefit you? So why perpetuate it? You don't seem to realise it, but all these snide comments make attitudes towards cyclists worse.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving. Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.[/p][/quote]So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road. A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same. I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet![/p][/quote]You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here. Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally.[/p][/quote]Well as a cyclist, surely this motorist v cyclist thing doesn't benefit you? So why perpetuate it? You don't seem to realise it, but all these snide comments make attitudes towards cyclists worse. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 3

12:18pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Brighton Taxi Driver wrote:
The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure.

The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems.

A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars.

Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward.

20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense.

Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment?

Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.
So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving.

Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.
So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road.

A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same.

I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet!
You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here.

Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally.
Well as a cyclist, surely this motorist v cyclist thing doesn't benefit you? So why perpetuate it? You don't seem to realise it, but all these snide comments make attitudes towards cyclists worse.
I don't think the anti-cyclist attitudes on display on this website could be any worse actually, but always happy to be one of the handful of people to challenge them and add another side to the debate. The stuff I've been reading on here has actually been a real eye-opener to be fair and definitely makes cycling on the roads that bit more scary having seen how many people out there (or out-there people) think in such a dehumanising way.
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Taxi Driver[/bold] wrote: The very idea of a city wide 20 mph speed limit was a farce and always destined to result in failure. The very simple facts are that ALL car drivers need to abide by perfectly adequate rules of the road that have been in place for years. Just as ALL cyclists need to do the same. Why do they always blame car drivers for the problems. A few months ago, I collected a gentleman from A&E, who had both wrists heavily bandaged and one arm in a sling. I had to open his front door for him as he was in no condition to do so himself. All he had done was proceed through a green traffic light by the clock tower, coming down Queens Road. Unfortunately, another cyclist who ignored a red light as many seem to feel is acceptable, arrived in his path causing him to crash. The other cyclist wasn't hurt fortunately, despite being in the wrong. Every day I witness these lunatics cycling away, all over the road, some on the phone or texting but the majority certainly completely oblivious to danger due to their headphones piping through their music, drowning out the sound of engines and braking cars. Simple respect for the rules of the road by EVERYONE entitled to use them is easily the safest way to move forward. 20 mph near schools at certain times is a sensible policy. Slower would be advisable at times. 20mph at 3am when the roads are almost clear is a nonsense. Unfortunately, it is always the motorists, those who pay the most for the upkeep of the roads and rightly so, who get it in the neck. Just as they are the ones who get points, fines and bans for their transgressions. Cycles should be licensed. Cyclists should be made to pay the same fines as motorists. Why is it OK for them to go through red lights? Why is it OK for them to go in the wrong direction along one way streets without fear of punishment? Not a dig at cyclists at all, just an observation. The very same observation that can be made about many pedestrians who seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to cross a road when the little red man is imploring them not to. Often causing a poor motorist to slam his brake on. Or causing a poor cyclist to slam theirs on too.[/p][/quote]So not a dig at cyclists or pedestrians? Then you need to add some balance to your rant by giving examples of all the things that other motorists do that makes you angry while you're driving. Lets face it, although motorists like to team up as some kind of brotherhood on here, when you're out in your cars it's every man for himself and you all hate each other as much as you hate the cyclists and the pedestrian races.[/p][/quote]So you do drive occasionally - despite your terrible knowledge of the highway code. You are a danger to others due to a serious lack of knowledge and practice. I do hope I never meet you on the road. A brotherhood? My word, you are paranoid! Firstly, not everyone commenting is a man, you sexist frog. Secondly, people like you and HughJarrs actually make the problem worse by throwing 'petrol head' accusations at random strangers and never admitting that cyclists can also be at fault. I cycle and I don't go through red lights or ride on the pavement so I expect others to do the same. I am happy to admit some cyclists are terrible, just as some drivers are appalling. It is people like you and HughJarrs that actually create this 'cyclist v drivers' mentality by hurling insults at people you don't even know and then trying to band them together in a brotherhood. You even claim cyclists and pedestrians are part of a race? Utterly mental. Get back in the box of frogs, Gribbet![/p][/quote]You need a lie down. Sure I defend cyclists against the common misconceptions and exaggerated stereotypes we all too commonly see on here, but I've never said that cyclists are never at fault, don't know why you think I say that. My knowledge of the highway code is probably as good as anyone's on here, maybe even better than yours, but you've never tested my knowledge, so you really have no idea either way. If I call someone a petrolhead, it's because they are one, that's not a term I would use indiscriminately. I also occasionally call bigoted people bigots and oafish people oafs on here. Like you I also cycle, but don't cycle on the pavement, or through red lights, or without lights, or wearing camouflage clothing, or texting, or with headphones in. I also use all the cycle lanes that people on here say no one uses and should be removed, I also pay the taxes that pay for the cycle lanes and the driver's part of the roads, which people claim that I don't pay because I don't own a car. I'm also happy to admit that some cyclists break the rules, goes without saying, but contrary to the wild claims often made on here about cyclists, most don't break the rules and don't deserve to be tarred by the same brush as a small minority any more that all motorists deserved to be accused of drink driving or pedestrians being accused of being muggers. I'm also fully aware that cyclists and pedestrians aren't separate races thanks, you shouldn't take everything so literally.[/p][/quote]Well as a cyclist, surely this motorist v cyclist thing doesn't benefit you? So why perpetuate it? You don't seem to realise it, but all these snide comments make attitudes towards cyclists worse.[/p][/quote]I don't think the anti-cyclist attitudes on display on this website could be any worse actually, but always happy to be one of the handful of people to challenge them and add another side to the debate. The stuff I've been reading on here has actually been a real eye-opener to be fair and definitely makes cycling on the roads that bit more scary having seen how many people out there (or out-there people) think in such a dehumanising way. Gribbet
  • Score: -2

2:33pm Wed 12 Feb 14

IndigoTram says...

Plantpot wrote:
IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-




hove.gov.uk/content/




parking-and-travel/t




ravel-transport-and-




road-safety/road-col




lision-and-casualty-




data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
Plantpot
If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1).

For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2).

That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


(1) http://www.rospa.com


/roadsafety/advicean


dinformation/cycling


/facts-figures.aspx
(2) http://transact.west


minster.gov.uk/CSU/P


olicy_and_Scrutiny_C


ommittees/Current_P_


and_S_Committees/Env


ironment/2013/25%20A


pril%202013/Item%206


%20App%203%20DRAFT%2


0Westminster%20Cycli


ng%20Strategy%202013


%20v5%20for%20commit


tee.pdf
The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.
I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful?

The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote] I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1). For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2). That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. (1) http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/cycling /facts-figures.aspx (2) http://transact.west minster.gov.uk/CSU/P olicy_and_Scrutiny_C ommittees/Current_P_ and_S_Committees/Env ironment/2013/25%20A pril%202013/Item%206 %20App%203%20DRAFT%2 0Westminster%20Cycli ng%20Strategy%202013 %20v5%20for%20commit tee.pdf[/p][/quote]The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful? The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated. IndigoTram
  • Score: -2

3:26pm Wed 12 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-





hove.gov.uk/content/





parking-and-travel/t





ravel-transport-and-





road-safety/road-col





lision-and-casualty-





data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
Plantpot
If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1).

For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2).

That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


(1) http://www.rospa.com



/roadsafety/advicean



dinformation/cycling



/facts-figures.aspx
(2) http://transact.west



minster.gov.uk/CSU/P



olicy_and_Scrutiny_C



ommittees/Current_P_



and_S_Committees/Env



ironment/2013/25%20A



pril%202013/Item%206



%20App%203%20DRAFT%2



0Westminster%20Cycli



ng%20Strategy%202013



%20v5%20for%20commit



tee.pdf
The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.
I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful?

The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated.
Cycling in London is far more dangerous and the roads/roundabouts/ju
nctions etc are much larger and there are far more hazards. Trust me, I cycled in London for many years and Brighton is nothing like it. Stats from a similar sized town would be more relevant.
[quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote] I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1). For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2). That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. (1) http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/cycling /facts-figures.aspx (2) http://transact.west minster.gov.uk/CSU/P olicy_and_Scrutiny_C ommittees/Current_P_ and_S_Committees/Env ironment/2013/25%20A pril%202013/Item%206 %20App%203%20DRAFT%2 0Westminster%20Cycli ng%20Strategy%202013 %20v5%20for%20commit tee.pdf[/p][/quote]The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful? The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated.[/p][/quote]Cycling in London is far more dangerous and the roads/roundabouts/ju nctions etc are much larger and there are far more hazards. Trust me, I cycled in London for many years and Brighton is nothing like it. Stats from a similar sized town would be more relevant. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: 2

3:41pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
IndigoTram wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Indigatio wrote:
The Police enforce the Law not the local council.
Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement.
We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.
For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??
Speeding kills.

The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy.

Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating.

But speeding kills.
OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.
Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost?

Speeding kills/maims.
I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m !
So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice.

What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?
There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables.

However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate.

Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton-





hove.gov.uk/content/





parking-and-travel/t





ravel-transport-and-





road-safety/road-col





lision-and-casualty-





data
It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists.

It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.
Plantpot
If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1).

For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2).

That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.


(1) http://www.rospa.com



/roadsafety/advicean



dinformation/cycling



/facts-figures.aspx
(2) http://transact.west



minster.gov.uk/CSU/P



olicy_and_Scrutiny_C



ommittees/Current_P_



and_S_Committees/Env



ironment/2013/25%20A



pril%202013/Item%206



%20App%203%20DRAFT%2



0Westminster%20Cycli



ng%20Strategy%202013



%20v5%20for%20commit



tee.pdf
The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.
I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful?

The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated.
Some excerpts from the Rospa report. I find it interesting that 2/3 of accidents occurred at junctions, not by the side of the road where there are often no cycle lanes anyway. 80% of injuries are to male cyclists - why such a huge disproportion? "Failure to look properly" is the most common cause of accident, clearly fixing this would fix the most common cause of injury therefore the close ratio of fault is highly significant......

"Most cycling accidents happen in urban areas where most cycling takes place. Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists. Not surprisingly, the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads. Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads."

"Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas
Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads
75% happen at, or near, a road junction
80% occur in daylight
80% of cyclist casualties are male
Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children
Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries."

"Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles, but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle.

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

Other common contributory factors attributed to drivers are 'poor turn/manoeuvre' (in 17% of serious accidents involving a cyclist) and 'careless, reckless, in a hurry (17%). Cyclists are more likely to suffer serious injuries when a driver is judged to be 'impaired by alcohol', exceeding the speed limit' or 'travelling too fast for the conditions'.

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists).

The most common vehicle involved in collisions with cyclists is a car or taxi, with the rider usually being hit by the front of the vehicle. In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle.

However, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) present a particular danger for cyclists, especially in London where around 20% of cyclist fatalities occur involve an HGV. These often occur when an HGV is turning left at a junction'. About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach 'passing too close' to the rider."

"Common Cycling Accidents:

Motorist emerging into path of cyclist
Motorist turning across path of cyclist
Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement
Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
Child cyclist playing or riding too fast"
[quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IndigoTram[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Indigatio[/bold] wrote: The Police enforce the Law not the local council. Davy only wants to be given powers to enforce these traffic offences so that the council can raise yet more money from fines to add to the small fortune they make already from, parking enforcement. We need more Police on the streets not Civil Enforcement Officers with pound signs in their eyes.[/p][/quote]For sure - try and ensure safe driving - although I'm not sure doing 20mph necessarilly equates to that - but please please please when will we start clamping down on the appalling disregard that many cyclists have for just about every aspect of the highway code??[/p][/quote]Speeding kills. The stunningly selfish car drivers place other people's lives in jeopardy. Cyclists should obey the highway code but any transgressions are by and large just irritating. But speeding kills.[/p][/quote]OK - how many people were killed in the 5 years leading up to the drop in limit within what is now the 20mph zone due to speeding ? I'll give you a clue - the number looks very much like a letter of the alphabet.[/p][/quote]Dunno, what about injuries though, or do you think injuries are ok? How much money did ambulances and air-lifts cost? Speeding kills/maims.[/p][/quote]I believe the councils own figures ( while not yet published ) are showing a close to zero reduction in deaths and injuries so far. Nice waste of £1.5m ![/p][/quote]So you're trying to reference figures which haven't been published yet? That's a nice. What about injuries though, how many were there in the 5 year period you're talking about?[/p][/quote]There are road accident figures available on the council website. However, even if there is an accident, it does not mean the it was due to speeding. It may be due to driver error, it may be due to cyclist error, it may be due to pedestrian error, it may be due to suffering illness at the wheel or mechanical failure. There are so many different variables. However, if the accident was due to speeding then the police will investigate. Most of the fatal casualties are motorcyclists rather than cyclists or pedestrians. You can view the data here http://www.brighton- hove.gov.uk/content/ parking-and-travel/t ravel-transport-and- road-safety/road-col lision-and-casualty- data[/p][/quote]It's worth looking at road deaths and accidents in more detail. We have the second safest roads in Europe behind Malta. We have safer roads than any country in Europe that bends over for cyclists. It's also worth looking at the RosPA accident figures regarding cars/cyclists. If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote][quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] If I remember correctly the fault split for accidents involving cars and cycles is 57% cars to 43% cycles. Most cyclist accidents happen at junctions and lights, and going on and off the pavements. Easily searchable using Google. It is a myth that accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars.[/p][/quote] I'm afraid that 57/43 split only applies to specific cases of collisions at junctions where "Failed to look properly" was the key contributory factor (1). For cycle/motorvehicle collisions overall, we have these figures (from Westminster): driver's fault 68% of the time, cyclist's fault 20% of the time, both/unknown 12% of the time (2). That makes drivers more than 3 times more likely to be at fault than cyclists. So you could say that those accidents are overwhelmingly the fault of cars. (1) http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/advicean dinformation/cycling /facts-figures.aspx (2) http://transact.west minster.gov.uk/CSU/P olicy_and_Scrutiny_C ommittees/Current_P_ and_S_Committees/Env ironment/2013/25%20A pril%202013/Item%206 %20App%203%20DRAFT%2 0Westminster%20Cycli ng%20Strategy%202013 %20v5%20for%20commit tee.pdf[/p][/quote]The second report covers Westminster only. Given the congestion in such a place this is unsurprising. On the other hand have you seen the cycle commuters ride? I am surprised the injury numbers are so low. Ref the Rospa report, the contents are what the contents are.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you think the city streets of Westminster are that different from the city streets of Brighton. Are London cyclists more law-abiding? Are London drivers less careful? The RoSPA figures are what they are, but the 57%/43% figures you cherry-picked do not refer to overall fault as you stated.[/p][/quote]Some excerpts from the Rospa report. I find it interesting that 2/3 of accidents occurred at junctions, not by the side of the road where there are often no cycle lanes anyway. 80% of injuries are to male cyclists - why such a huge disproportion? "Failure to look properly" is the most common cause of accident, clearly fixing this would fix the most common cause of injury therefore the close ratio of fault is highly significant...... "Most cycling accidents happen in urban areas where most cycling takes place. Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists. Not surprisingly, the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads. Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads." "Around 75% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents occur in urban areas Around half of cyclist fatalities occur on rural roads 75% happen at, or near, a road junction 80% occur in daylight 80% of cyclist casualties are male Almost one quarter of the cyclists killed or injured are children Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries." "Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles, but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle. In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is 'failed to look properly' by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. 'Failed to look properly' was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions. Other common contributory factors attributed to drivers are 'poor turn/manoeuvre' (in 17% of serious accidents involving a cyclist) and 'careless, reckless, in a hurry (17%). Cyclists are more likely to suffer serious injuries when a driver is judged to be 'impaired by alcohol', exceeding the speed limit' or 'travelling too fast for the conditions'. The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists). The most common vehicle involved in collisions with cyclists is a car or taxi, with the rider usually being hit by the front of the vehicle. In a quarter of fatal cyclist accidents, the front of the vehicle hit the rear of the bicycle. However, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) present a particular danger for cyclists, especially in London where around 20% of cyclist fatalities occur involve an HGV. These often occur when an HGV is turning left at a junction'. About one quarter of accidents resulting in serious injury to a cyclist involved an HGV, bus or coach 'passing too close' to the rider." "Common Cycling Accidents: Motorist emerging into path of cyclist Motorist turning across path of cyclist Cyclist riding into the path of a motor vehicle, often riding off a pavement Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road Child cyclist playing or riding too fast" Plantpot
  • Score: 1

4:02pm Wed 12 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.
I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: -2

5:54pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

p a t r i c k wrote:
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.
[quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.[/p][/quote]I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 9

10:38pm Wed 12 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.
Its car driver's that always get the blame, but its the cyclists & pedestrians that end up in hospital, as a car driver, I can live with that ok, if these people step out into the road, some one is going to get squashed now & again, you might not like it folks, but thats how it is...
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.[/p][/quote]I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.[/p][/quote]Its car driver's that always get the blame, but its the cyclists & pedestrians that end up in hospital, as a car driver, I can live with that ok, if these people step out into the road, some one is going to get squashed now & again, you might not like it folks, but thats how it is... ARMANA
  • Score: 3

8:47am Thu 13 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

ARMANA wrote:
Bill in Hanover wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.
Its car driver's that always get the blame, but its the cyclists & pedestrians that end up in hospital, as a car driver, I can live with that ok, if these people step out into the road, some one is going to get squashed now & again, you might not like it folks, but thats how it is...
It is an interesting point and backs up the need for non-fault insurance to be carried by road vehicles as in the Netherlands and other European countries.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.[/p][/quote]I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.[/p][/quote]Its car driver's that always get the blame, but its the cyclists & pedestrians that end up in hospital, as a car driver, I can live with that ok, if these people step out into the road, some one is going to get squashed now & again, you might not like it folks, but thats how it is...[/p][/quote]It is an interesting point and backs up the need for non-fault insurance to be carried by road vehicles as in the Netherlands and other European countries. HJarrs
  • Score: -4

9:01am Thu 13 Feb 14

HJarrs says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
p a t r i c k wrote:
I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced.

The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense.

People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.
I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.
Very timely comment. I read an article on the BBC website yesterday...Jaywalki
ng: How the car industry outlawed crossing the road

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-26073
797

"A key moment, says Norton, was a petition signed by 42,000 people in Cincinnati in 1923 to limit the speed of cars mechanically to 25mph (40kph). Though the petition failed, an alarmed auto industry scrambled to shift the blame for pedestrian casualties from drivers to walkers."

"The UK is among those countries where jaywalking is not an offence. But the rate of pedestrian deaths is half that of the US, at 0.736 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011 compared to 1.422 per 100,000 in America. "

The whole article had a familiar ring to it. Rather than ban jaywalking, the traffic speed should be reduced to a sesnsible speed to accommodate pedestrians (humans in our natural form!). As time goes by, large sections of our road network should be made shared space. We should not give one group preference just because they happen to sit within a tonne of steel, glass and plastic, quite the reverse.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]p a t r i c k[/bold] wrote: I would love to see the 20 mph speed limits properly enforced. The risk to pedestrians and cyclists by speeding traffic is immense. People have a right to walk or cycle around their own city without fear of being killed.[/p][/quote]I would love to see jaywalking become a finable offence in Brighton. Along the Lewes Road there are a multitude of pedestrian crossings yet most pedestrans just amble across where they feel like, whether there is an oncoming car or not, or else they press the button on the crossing and then stroll across without waiting for the green light leaving half a dozen cars and buses waiting on a red light at a deserted crossing. p.s terrible as the incident was, the girl who was killed in the bus lane on the Lewes Road was ten yards from a pedestrian crossing.[/p][/quote]Very timely comment. I read an article on the BBC website yesterday...Jaywalki ng: How the car industry outlawed crossing the road http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/magazine-26073 797 "A key moment, says Norton, was a petition signed by 42,000 people in Cincinnati in 1923 to limit the speed of cars mechanically to 25mph (40kph). Though the petition failed, an alarmed auto industry scrambled to shift the blame for pedestrian casualties from drivers to walkers." "The UK is among those countries where jaywalking is not an offence. But the rate of pedestrian deaths is half that of the US, at 0.736 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2011 compared to 1.422 per 100,000 in America. " The whole article had a familiar ring to it. Rather than ban jaywalking, the traffic speed should be reduced to a sesnsible speed to accommodate pedestrians (humans in our natural form!). As time goes by, large sections of our road network should be made shared space. We should not give one group preference just because they happen to sit within a tonne of steel, glass and plastic, quite the reverse. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

9:45am Thu 13 Feb 14

Plantpot says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.
The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning?

You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.[/p][/quote]The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning? You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout..... Plantpot
  • Score: 3

10:04am Thu 13 Feb 14

Richada says...

Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.
The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning?

You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....
Good point!

Any sensible motorist knows not to mess with a bus or HGV - particularly doing something stupid like overtaking up its' blind side, you will always come off worse.

This is rather reinforced by the recent instances of bycycle fatalities in London with HGVs.

Each class of roaduser has specific advantages and disadvantages when on the roa. In the case of an HGV, whilst the high driving position offers a better chance of seeing trouble further up the road, it also hinders maneuvering in restricted spaces - which would include turning left at junctions and roundabouts.

I just know I am going to be shot down for saying this but........the average HGV driver is vastly better trained than the average motorist......who, in turn, is better trained than the average cyclist.

Maybe the time has come for ALL road users to take a test, which, at the very least, includes hazard perception.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.[/p][/quote]The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning? You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....[/p][/quote]Good point! Any sensible motorist knows not to mess with a bus or HGV - particularly doing something stupid like overtaking up its' blind side, you will always come off worse. This is rather reinforced by the recent instances of bycycle fatalities in London with HGVs. Each class of roaduser has specific advantages and disadvantages when on the roa. In the case of an HGV, whilst the high driving position offers a better chance of seeing trouble further up the road, it also hinders maneuvering in restricted spaces - which would include turning left at junctions and roundabouts. I just know I am going to be shot down for saying this but........the average HGV driver is vastly better trained than the average motorist......who, in turn, is better trained than the average cyclist. Maybe the time has come for ALL road users to take a test, which, at the very least, includes hazard perception. Richada
  • Score: 6

10:26am Thu 13 Feb 14

thevoiceoftruth says...

Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.
The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning?

You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....
Sensible cyclists do tend to avoid HGVs but there is very little you can do if you are waiting at the lights and an HGV pulls up alongside you.

The stats in London are different - women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men. Or they were, it was a couple of years ago that I read the research.

Generally as a driver I look out for cyclists and as a cyclist, I assume all drivers are morons - it's the best way to keep safe.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.[/p][/quote]The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning? You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....[/p][/quote]Sensible cyclists do tend to avoid HGVs but there is very little you can do if you are waiting at the lights and an HGV pulls up alongside you. The stats in London are different - women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men. Or they were, it was a couple of years ago that I read the research. Generally as a driver I look out for cyclists and as a cyclist, I assume all drivers are morons - it's the best way to keep safe. thevoiceoftruth
  • Score: -2

8:22am Fri 14 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
thevoiceoftruth wrote:
I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.
The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning?

You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....
Sensible cyclists do tend to avoid HGVs but there is very little you can do if you are waiting at the lights and an HGV pulls up alongside you.

The stats in London are different - women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men. Or they were, it was a couple of years ago that I read the research.

Generally as a driver I look out for cyclists and as a cyclist, I assume all drivers are morons - it's the best way to keep safe.
Moron,!!! Some one who cycles on a road, with large lumps of metal doing 30 mph+ or a lot more,
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote: I am surprised about the 80% male casualties - I read that females were more likely to be killed at junctions because they were less likely to jump the lights. Now it sounds strange that jumping lights could be safer, but the problem comes from drivers turning left and not looking first. Or the cyclist being in the blind spot of a HGV.[/p][/quote]The internet is a wonderful thing. In amongst the c*** there are plenty of facts. Before entering into a discussion like this, it's worth people checking the available facts, which often are anti-intuitive. Unfortunately, the report I quoted lacks detail, it's the circumstances of the accidents that are really important. However, it's interesting that 80% of accidents are at junctions, yet the focus of the council is on cycle lanes. What causes 80% of injured cyclists to be male? Or rather, what do females do to avoid injury? Where is the learning? You mention the problem is that drivers turn left without looking. Actually the split in terms of fault (where not looking is the cause), is 57/43 in favour of the motorist, hardly overwhelming. Ref the HGV's, common sense would suggest avoiding them like the plague, and their dangers are well known IF you keep yourself informed as a cyclist. For example, as a driver you know to give way to them on a roundabout.....[/p][/quote]Sensible cyclists do tend to avoid HGVs but there is very little you can do if you are waiting at the lights and an HGV pulls up alongside you. The stats in London are different - women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men. Or they were, it was a couple of years ago that I read the research. Generally as a driver I look out for cyclists and as a cyclist, I assume all drivers are morons - it's the best way to keep safe.[/p][/quote]Moron,!!! Some one who cycles on a road, with large lumps of metal doing 30 mph+ or a lot more, ARMANA
  • Score: -1

1:15pm Fri 14 Feb 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Take it Personally wrote:
Ian Davey -what a tit
I was looking for a word to justify this attention seeking nobody who has the cheek to claim thousands in expenses and do very little for the city, - tit is a compact apt title
[quote][p][bold]Take it Personally[/bold] wrote: Ian Davey -what a tit[/p][/quote]I was looking for a word to justify this attention seeking nobody who has the cheek to claim thousands in expenses and do very little for the city, - tit is a compact apt title ThinkBrighton
  • Score: 4

12:52am Sat 15 Feb 14

f-stopfitzgerald says...

I'm staggered by the number of narrow minded cretins on here who see only black and white, good and evil, and throw insults at those who have a different point of view. Its like a nursery.
Dividing people into drivers, pedestrians and cyclists is stupid. Like most people I'm all three of those and also a bus passenger and rail user at different times. Even though my daily commute to London requires a five mile round trip cycle ride (or walk, sometimes) and 2-3 hours on a train we also do about 15k a year in the car.

There are numerous reasons for choosing to drive a car:
• The weather
• The steep hills, especially in the northern suburbs, making cycling unattractive.
• The need to carry children/dog/shoppin
g/tools of work etc
• Having to juggle kids, work, shopping etc - home>school>work>sch
ool>after-school activities>home
• The self employed (like my wife) and employed who need to get to multiple places each day to visit clients
• Being elderly and disabled.
• It's much quicker, especially if you living in the suburbs, where the bus services are infrequent and only tend to go into town. It's a 15 minute walk just to the bus stop where I live. For 80% of my journeys I can get to where I want to go by car in that time.
If going from one suburb to another (eg Patcham to Hove) the bus journey itself then takes 4-5 times longer than driving would (by the time you've factored in waiting for the bus, stopping every few yards on an indirect route, changing buses if there isn't a direct service to where you're going and waiting all over again).
• If you're out late (only one bus per hour in the evenings to many places)
• If you're going out with the whole family driving is the cheapest and quickest option.

A lot of this depends on where people live, whether they work or not, and their lifestyle. Retired or single people living and working in the town centre probably don't need a car.

To hurl abuse at those who make different choices is puerile.
When I'm cycling I stop at red lights, don't wear headphones etc. I often get cut up by thoughtless car drivers, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid. When I'm driving I always watch for cyclists and give way for pedestrians. I believe more of the city centre's streets should be pedestrianised, like New Rd (it creates a nicer environment) and I agree with 20mph zones in narrow residential streets, but not on major arteries. I ignore those because driving on a main road in second gear is stupid.

Cycling and public transport should be encouraged where practical and economic, but cars will always be around for those other times. Everybody, greens included, should just deal with it.
I'm staggered by the number of narrow minded cretins on here who see only black and white, good and evil, and throw insults at those who have a different point of view. Its like a nursery. Dividing people into drivers, pedestrians and cyclists is stupid. Like most people I'm all three of those and also a bus passenger and rail user at different times. Even though my daily commute to London requires a five mile round trip cycle ride (or walk, sometimes) and 2-3 hours on a train we also do about 15k a year in the car. There are numerous reasons for choosing to drive a car: • The weather • The steep hills, especially in the northern suburbs, making cycling unattractive. • The need to carry children/dog/shoppin g/tools of work etc • Having to juggle kids, work, shopping etc - home>school>work>sch ool>after-school activities>home • The self employed (like my wife) and employed who need to get to multiple places each day to visit clients • Being elderly and disabled. • It's much quicker, especially if you living in the suburbs, where the bus services are infrequent and only tend to go into town. It's a 15 minute walk just to the bus stop where I live. For 80% of my journeys I can get to where I want to go by car in that time. If going from one suburb to another (eg Patcham to Hove) the bus journey itself then takes 4-5 times longer than driving would (by the time you've factored in waiting for the bus, stopping every few yards on an indirect route, changing buses if there isn't a direct service to where you're going and waiting all over again). • If you're out late (only one bus per hour in the evenings to many places) • If you're going out with the whole family driving is the cheapest and quickest option. A lot of this depends on where people live, whether they work or not, and their lifestyle. Retired or single people living and working in the town centre probably don't need a car. To hurl abuse at those who make different choices is puerile. When I'm cycling I stop at red lights, don't wear headphones etc. I often get cut up by thoughtless car drivers, but that doesn't mean they're all stupid. When I'm driving I always watch for cyclists and give way for pedestrians. I believe more of the city centre's streets should be pedestrianised, like New Rd (it creates a nicer environment) and I agree with 20mph zones in narrow residential streets, but not on major arteries. I ignore those because driving on a main road in second gear is stupid. Cycling and public transport should be encouraged where practical and economic, but cars will always be around for those other times. Everybody, greens included, should just deal with it. f-stopfitzgerald
  • Score: 5

9:27am Sat 15 Feb 14

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this.
If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this. Ihopenoonehasthisusername
  • Score: 4

11:39am Sat 15 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname
wrote:
If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this.
Absolutely 100% Right,bud.
[quote][p][bold]Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname[/bold] wrote: If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this.[/p][/quote]Absolutely 100% Right,bud. ARMANA
  • Score: 2

11:59am Sat 15 Feb 14

straightasadye says...

Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
SPOT ON - absolutely right.
But sadly there is no escape from the arseholes you describe.
Not surprising when from what I can see most of those in authority
are no better.
[quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]SPOT ON - absolutely right. But sadly there is no escape from the arseholes you describe. Not surprising when from what I can see most of those in authority are no better. straightasadye
  • Score: -5

2:52pm Sat 15 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

straightasadye wrote:
Withdean-er wrote:
Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user.

And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.
SPOT ON - absolutely right.
But sadly there is no escape from the arseholes you describe.
Not surprising when from what I can see most of those in authority
are no better.
Awful fast driving by brighton drivers, LOL, chance, would be fine, GET THE BUS ROAD WIMPS,
[quote][p][bold]straightasadye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Withdean-er[/bold] wrote: Cue belligerent comments from petrol-heads who selfish-ly whizz round residential streets at 35mph and more if they get away from it, "Coz they're in a rush and no ****ing council or policeman tells me what to do". Endangering pedestrians, pets, urban wildlife, kids, cyclists and any other road user. And I'm not a regular cyclist - just a resident who witnesses awful and fast driving by many drivers in Brighton and Hove, where they know mobile speed cameras never oprate.[/p][/quote]SPOT ON - absolutely right. But sadly there is no escape from the arseholes you describe. Not surprising when from what I can see most of those in authority are no better.[/p][/quote]Awful fast driving by brighton drivers, LOL, chance, would be fine, GET THE BUS ROAD WIMPS, ARMANA
  • Score: 2

5:16pm Sat 15 Feb 14

IndigoTram says...

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname
wrote:
If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this.
The RoSPA figures that Plantpot quoted show that drivers were at fault at 57% of serious collisions with cyclists at junctions. Figures from Westminster show drivers at fault at 68% of collisions with cyclists.

So given that most collisions are caused by drivers, why should cyclist education take priority over reducing driver speed?
[quote][p][bold]Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname[/bold] wrote: If it's cyclist safety he's worried about he should travel round the city for a few hours and see that cyclist safety should start with educating the cyclists in how to keep themselves safe. I'm on the city roads up to eight hours a day and see cyclists that stick to the rules are in the minority. Reducing speed limits aren't going to change this.[/p][/quote]The RoSPA figures that Plantpot quoted show that drivers were at fault at 57% of serious collisions with cyclists at junctions. Figures from Westminster show drivers at fault at 68% of collisions with cyclists. So given that most collisions are caused by drivers, why should cyclist education take priority over reducing driver speed? IndigoTram
  • Score: -3

1:30pm Sun 16 Feb 14

Fairfax Aches says...

This guy is such an unbelievable c*** , along with the rest of the Greens they need publicly flogged and exiled from Brighton in shame for the rest of their natural lives.
This guy is such an unbelievable c*** , along with the rest of the Greens they need publicly flogged and exiled from Brighton in shame for the rest of their natural lives. Fairfax Aches
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Mon 17 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

Richada wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.
Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot.

Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?
OH NO, !! I hate alot more people than that, ;)
[quote][p][bold]Richada[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: I should also have said that the accident rate for motorcycles makes me grateful I've never been tempted by one.[/p][/quote]Amazing how motorcycles never get mentioned (your post is a first in my experience here) by either of the extremely polorised factions - I rather think the casualty rate amongst this particular sector of road user is probably the highest of the lot. Incidentally, has the whole country become either car or cycle hating, or is this just another unpleasant Green side affect?[/p][/quote]OH NO, !! I hate alot more people than that, ;) ARMANA
  • Score: 1

11:17pm Mon 17 Feb 14

FatherTed11 says...

You mean those signs are real???!
You mean those signs are real???! FatherTed11
  • Score: 1

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