Race against time for 9km cycle route

Race against time for 9km cycle route

Race against time for 9km cycle route

First published in News by

A nine-kilometre stretch of cycle path given planning permission now faces a race against time to be completed.

The north-south cycle route would link the Newhaven, Peacehaven and Seaford with Lewes and beyond along the west side of the River Ouse.

The application was approved by the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) in July but the money to build it must be claimed by March or funding from the Government, worth £600,000, will be withdrawn.

The new path, phase three, follows phase one from Kingston to Lewes and phase two from Rodmell to Southease.

The Ouse Valley Cycle Network (OVCN), a voluntary group, helped get the route to this stage.

Its big hurdle is getting permission from all the landowners – a mixture of public bodies and private individuals – to decide on an exact route.

The path will be used by walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users. Horses will also be allowed on some sections.

Rod Lambert is a committee member of the Cycle Seahaven club.

He said: “The campaign has gathered momentum – especially with the creation of the South Downs National Park and its pro-cycling stance.

“This is a fantastic opportunity for cyclists to gain a safe, picturesque route from the Sussex coast northwards linking Newhaven and Peacehaven with the neighbouring towns and villages, and provide a safe and functional route for leisure, tourism, commuters and students alike.

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

Cycle Seahaven’s chairman Jamie Lynch said: “We need to grasp this opportunity to make a safe and healthy cycle route for future generations to enjoy.”

A SDNPA spokeswoman said: “We are working with our partners Sustrans and OVCN to ensure the scheme will be delivered within the timeframe set by the Department for Transport.”

She said negotiations with landowners were ongoing and progressing positively but could not say when agreements would be reached.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:50am Mon 25 Aug 14

Sussex jim says...

£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path? Sussex jim
  • Score: -35

8:28am Mon 25 Aug 14

monkeymoo says...

How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert. monkeymoo
  • Score: -14

8:48am Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!!
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 14

8:49am Mon 25 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
Perhaps people cycling from Brighton will use it.

Given you criteria, perhaps we should encourage whiskey drinking?
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]Perhaps people cycling from Brighton will use it. Given you criteria, perhaps we should encourage whiskey drinking? HJarrs
  • Score: -4

8:52am Mon 25 Aug 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 16

8:53am Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
It is perfectly clear that he said this path could perhaps turn Newhaven into a cycling gateway into Europe and possibly help save the port - how much clearer do you want it?!
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]It is perfectly clear that he said this path could perhaps turn Newhaven into a cycling gateway into Europe and possibly help save the port - how much clearer do you want it?! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 7

9:06am Mon 25 Aug 14

Ash Brighton says...

Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
I would suspect more people than you realise.

While the path may not directly generate revenue per se, it does encourage cycling and walking helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle. Healthier people means less outgoings expenditure for the NHS in theory.

There is also the VAT generated from new walking and cycling enthusiast purchasing equipment.

Some people may choose to commute on that route if they work in that area, meaning potentially fewer cars on the road.

The revenue generated from this route is irrelevant in my opinion because roads are paid out of general taxation and cycling numbers are growing so it is only rational that facilities should be upgraded to accommodate these new road users.

The detail of the exact route are a bit vague. I presume at the moment if you wanted to cycle between these places that you would be forced onto country roads. I don't mind cycling these personally but I know a lot of people might be put off. This is because on these stretches of road, a larger than normal minority of drivers will pass you outrageously closely (within easy killing distance). Most of us also do not to like it when we create tailbacks (I do the responsible thing and pull over when safe to do so).
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]I would suspect more people than you realise. While the path may not directly generate revenue per se, it does encourage cycling and walking helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle. Healthier people means less outgoings expenditure for the NHS in theory. There is also the VAT generated from new walking and cycling enthusiast purchasing equipment. Some people may choose to commute on that route if they work in that area, meaning potentially fewer cars on the road. The revenue generated from this route is irrelevant in my opinion because roads are paid out of general taxation and cycling numbers are growing so it is only rational that facilities should be upgraded to accommodate these new road users. The detail of the exact route are a bit vague. I presume at the moment if you wanted to cycle between these places that you would be forced onto country roads. I don't mind cycling these personally but I know a lot of people might be put off. This is because on these stretches of road, a larger than normal minority of drivers will pass you outrageously closely (within easy killing distance). Most of us also do not to like it when we create tailbacks (I do the responsible thing and pull over when safe to do so). Ash Brighton
  • Score: 20

9:24am Mon 25 Aug 14

Newhavenles says...

monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
This probably means that they (the French) have already decided to close the route.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]This probably means that they (the French) have already decided to close the route. Newhavenles
  • Score: 5

9:36am Mon 25 Aug 14

Cyril Bolleaux says...

I am sure it will attract dozens of tourists every year.
I am sure it will attract dozens of tourists every year. Cyril Bolleaux
  • Score: -7

9:39am Mon 25 Aug 14

Newhavenles says...

Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
Lots of cyclists on on the road from Newhaven to Lewes yesterday, including myself,on what for us can be a very dangerous road,even worse on a work day.Nobody but a fool would take a child on that road so I think there will be a lot of people interested as quite a few families like to get out together especially when the weather is good
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]Lots of cyclists on on the road from Newhaven to Lewes yesterday, including myself,on what for us can be a very dangerous road,even worse on a work day.Nobody but a fool would take a child on that road so I think there will be a lot of people interested as quite a few families like to get out together especially when the weather is good Newhavenles
  • Score: 19

9:50am Mon 25 Aug 14

Hove Actually says...

It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students'

Just how wide is this bloody thing going to be?
It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' Just how wide is this bloody thing going to be? Hove Actually
  • Score: 0

10:23am Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 7

11:53am Mon 25 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype. notslimjim
  • Score: -8

12:54pm Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 6

1:54pm Mon 25 Aug 14

annebarry says...

It's not just hype; the Newhaven -Diepper Ferry is a great boon to cyclists & frewwuently usedd to access the Avenue Verte to Paris. We cycled last week along the NCN2 from Brighton to Seaford & encountered several grups of cyclists who'd alighted from the ferry in Newhaven & were confused by current convoluted & badly surfaced or traffic ridden routes. Howmuch better for motorists if cyclists could be safely removed from the section from 7 Sisters Cuntry Park to Seaford, where we often see them struggling on narrow,country roads on heavily laden bikes or with child cyclists, expecting to see European standards of bike routes, where cyclists are respected.. The Ouse Valley Route would be a real attraction for those users who enjoy the peace, exercise, nature, history,environment & tranquillity of the riverside. Motorists could try the Cuckoo Trail if they don't see how the route can be shared by those without oil fuelled- machines to propel them.
It's not just hype; the Newhaven -Diepper Ferry is a great boon to cyclists & frewwuently usedd to access the Avenue Verte to Paris. We cycled last week along the NCN2 from Brighton to Seaford & encountered several grups of cyclists who'd alighted from the ferry in Newhaven & were confused by current convoluted & badly surfaced or traffic ridden routes. Howmuch better for motorists if cyclists could be safely removed from the section from 7 Sisters Cuntry Park to Seaford, where we often see them struggling on narrow,country roads on heavily laden bikes or with child cyclists, expecting to see European standards of bike routes, where cyclists are respected.[as they do not pollute or take up so much public space]. The Ouse Valley Route would be a real attraction for those users who enjoy the peace, exercise, nature, history,environment & tranquillity of the riverside. Motorists could try the Cuckoo Trail if they don't see how the route can be shared by those without oil fuelled- machines to propel them. annebarry
  • Score: 5

1:58pm Mon 25 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all:

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

The poster you quoted merely opined:

" I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. "

The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ".

Try reading what people have actually written.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said![/p][/quote]But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all: “It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.” The poster you quoted merely opined: " I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. " The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ". Try reading what people have actually written. notslimjim
  • Score: -12

2:08pm Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all:

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

The poster you quoted merely opined:

" I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. "

The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ".

Try reading what people have actually written.
You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!!
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said![/p][/quote]But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all: “It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.” The poster you quoted merely opined: " I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. " The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ". Try reading what people have actually written.[/p][/quote]You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 8

2:45pm Mon 25 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all:

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

The poster you quoted merely opined:

" I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. "

The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ".

Try reading what people have actually written.
You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!!
I'm not disputing that the phrase wasn't used.

In fact, I've quoted AND discussed it.

The troll on here is YOU, because you posted a comment designed to receive a response in the form of corrections.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said![/p][/quote]But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all: “It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.” The poster you quoted merely opined: " I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. " The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ". Try reading what people have actually written.[/p][/quote]You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!![/p][/quote]I'm not disputing that the phrase wasn't used. In fact, I've quoted AND discussed it. The troll on here is YOU, because you posted a comment designed to receive a response in the form of corrections. notslimjim
  • Score: -11

2:48pm Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all:

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

The poster you quoted merely opined:

" I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. "

The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ".

Try reading what people have actually written.
You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!!
I'm not disputing that the phrase wasn't used.

In fact, I've quoted AND discussed it.

The troll on here is YOU, because you posted a comment designed to receive a response in the form of corrections.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said![/p][/quote]But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all: “It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.” The poster you quoted merely opined: " I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. " The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ". Try reading what people have actually written.[/p][/quote]You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!![/p][/quote]I'm not disputing that the phrase wasn't used. In fact, I've quoted AND discussed it. The troll on here is YOU, because you posted a comment designed to receive a response in the form of corrections.[/p][/quote]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz brighton bluenose
  • Score: 12

3:05pm Mon 25 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

Ah, another traditional response from those who have been caught out.
"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz" Ah, another traditional response from those who have been caught out. notslimjim
  • Score: -18

3:49pm Mon 25 Aug 14

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
Certainly. The Newhaven-Dieppe ferry has been losing money for decades. This process has been exacerbated by the Channel Tunnel, improved container facilities at other places and by the fact that the road links to Newhaven were poor even in the 1960s and there are no plans to improve them. This loss of freight traffic has also been compounded by a loss of passenger traffic, which in turn played a major role in SNCF's decision to close the Newhaven-Paris railway line (and replace it with the cycle path). In short the whol;e thing is in a vicious cycle of decline.

Dieppe has tried counter this decline by re-inventing itself as a pleasure marina, and we on this side of the channel have, as per usual, done absolutely nothing.

So no, a few dozen extra cyclists a day will not 'help to save the ferry'. They will not make the slightest, tiniest difference and it was a completely asinine statement (which I'm sure in fairness was just made as a throwaway remark and not meant as a concrete argument)

Now go back to arguing about Israel with 'Steve Foster' on NSC!
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]Certainly. The Newhaven-Dieppe ferry has been losing money for decades. This process has been exacerbated by the Channel Tunnel, improved container facilities at other places and by the fact that the road links to Newhaven were poor even in the 1960s and there are no plans to improve them. This loss of freight traffic has also been compounded by a loss of passenger traffic, which in turn played a major role in SNCF's decision to close the Newhaven-Paris railway line (and replace it with the cycle path). In short the whol;e thing is in a vicious cycle of decline. Dieppe has tried counter this decline by re-inventing itself as a pleasure marina, and we on this side of the channel have, as per usual, done absolutely nothing. So no, a few dozen extra cyclists a day will not 'help to save the ferry'. They will not make the slightest, tiniest difference and it was a completely asinine statement (which I'm sure in fairness was just made as a throwaway remark and not meant as a concrete argument) Now go back to arguing about Israel with 'Steve Foster' on NSC! Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: -1

5:34pm Mon 25 Aug 14

Sussex jim says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!!
Let me amend my comment to include all the other leisure users who will make no contribution towards it.
There is already an excellent hard path, from which motor vehicles are banned, a short distance away down to Cuckmere Haven alongside the river, for leisure and tourism.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!![/p][/quote]Let me amend my comment to include all the other leisure users who will make no contribution towards it. There is already an excellent hard path, from which motor vehicles are banned, a short distance away down to Cuckmere Haven alongside the river, for leisure and tourism. Sussex jim
  • Score: -5

7:04pm Mon 25 Aug 14

Smartbloke says...

Once again, we have insular airheaded Argus readers - the first to comment, naturally, who, because they can't see beyound their own narrow world, and don't care about what leisure activities others like to do, choose to moan and whine and howl at something they don't understand.

Once again, the Argus gets the readers it deserves.
Once again, we have insular airheaded Argus readers - the first to comment, naturally, who, because they can't see beyound their own narrow world, and don't care about what leisure activities others like to do, choose to moan and whine and howl at something they don't understand. Once again, the Argus gets the readers it deserves. Smartbloke
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
Certainly. The Newhaven-Dieppe ferry has been losing money for decades. This process has been exacerbated by the Channel Tunnel, improved container facilities at other places and by the fact that the road links to Newhaven were poor even in the 1960s and there are no plans to improve them. This loss of freight traffic has also been compounded by a loss of passenger traffic, which in turn played a major role in SNCF's decision to close the Newhaven-Paris railway line (and replace it with the cycle path). In short the whol;e thing is in a vicious cycle of decline.

Dieppe has tried counter this decline by re-inventing itself as a pleasure marina, and we on this side of the channel have, as per usual, done absolutely nothing.

So no, a few dozen extra cyclists a day will not 'help to save the ferry'. They will not make the slightest, tiniest difference and it was a completely asinine statement (which I'm sure in fairness was just made as a throwaway remark and not meant as a concrete argument)

Now go back to arguing about Israel with 'Steve Foster' on NSC!
Ha ha ha! Thanks for the response - and yes I will!!
[quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]Certainly. The Newhaven-Dieppe ferry has been losing money for decades. This process has been exacerbated by the Channel Tunnel, improved container facilities at other places and by the fact that the road links to Newhaven were poor even in the 1960s and there are no plans to improve them. This loss of freight traffic has also been compounded by a loss of passenger traffic, which in turn played a major role in SNCF's decision to close the Newhaven-Paris railway line (and replace it with the cycle path). In short the whol;e thing is in a vicious cycle of decline. Dieppe has tried counter this decline by re-inventing itself as a pleasure marina, and we on this side of the channel have, as per usual, done absolutely nothing. So no, a few dozen extra cyclists a day will not 'help to save the ferry'. They will not make the slightest, tiniest difference and it was a completely asinine statement (which I'm sure in fairness was just made as a throwaway remark and not meant as a concrete argument) Now go back to arguing about Israel with 'Steve Foster' on NSC![/p][/quote]Ha ha ha! Thanks for the response - and yes I will!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -2

8:43pm Mon 25 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

Sussex jim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!!
Let me amend my comment to include all the other leisure users who will make no contribution towards it.
There is already an excellent hard path, from which motor vehicles are banned, a short distance away down to Cuckmere Haven alongside the river, for leisure and tourism.
We all make contributions in one way or another to other peoples tourism and leisure activities! I may not partake in the type of leisure activity that you subscribe to but I wouldn't dream of objecting to a tiny part of my council or income tax subsidising it - that's how the grown-up world works!!
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]Did you not read the article?! It specifically mentions 'walkers, cyclists and wheelchair-user's' plus horse-riders who will use it 'for 'leisure, tourism, commuters and students' as well as being phase three of a partially completed route - was it REALLY that difficult to comprehend?!![/p][/quote]Let me amend my comment to include all the other leisure users who will make no contribution towards it. There is already an excellent hard path, from which motor vehicles are banned, a short distance away down to Cuckmere Haven alongside the river, for leisure and tourism.[/p][/quote]We all make contributions in one way or another to other peoples tourism and leisure activities! I may not partake in the type of leisure activity that you subscribe to but I wouldn't dream of objecting to a tiny part of my council or income tax subsidising it - that's how the grown-up world works!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

11:30pm Mon 25 Aug 14

Poem58 says...

I see the Jeremy Clarkeson fan club is still going strong.
I see the Jeremy Clarkeson fan club is still going strong. Poem58
  • Score: -1

9:41am Tue 26 Aug 14

wippasnapper says...

I'm so happy they have included in their list of persons that will be allowed to use these routes as being walkers, cyclists, Horses and wheelchair users i.e. mobility scooters and powerchairs unlike the B&HCC councils cycle paths that are only ever stated as being for the safety of cyclists and walkers so not to be confused with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) or The Ouse Valley Cycle Network (OVCN) as I'm sure they make associability for all unlike B&HCC who only make all of their cycle paths accessible to cyclists and walkers as to those of us who use motorized wheelchairs to get around we are not so considered when physically abilities come into the creation of their Cycle paths even though the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) are also involved in the decision prose’s in these Cycle paths with B&HCC take for instance the Cycle paths along the top of Ditchling Rd to Stanmer Woods accessible to all until you get to Stanmer Woods witch is only accessible to cyclists and walkers.
I'm so happy they have included in their list of persons that will be allowed to use these routes as being walkers, cyclists, Horses and wheelchair users i.e. mobility scooters and powerchairs unlike the B&HCC councils cycle paths that are only ever stated as being for the safety of cyclists and walkers so not to be confused with the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) or The Ouse Valley Cycle Network (OVCN) as I'm sure they make associability for all unlike B&HCC who only make all of their cycle paths accessible to cyclists and walkers as to those of us who use motorized wheelchairs to get around we are not so considered when physically abilities come into the creation of their Cycle paths even though the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) are also involved in the decision prose’s in these Cycle paths with B&HCC take for instance the Cycle paths along the top of Ditchling Rd to Stanmer Woods accessible to all until you get to Stanmer Woods witch is only accessible to cyclists and walkers. wippasnapper
  • Score: -1

9:49am Tue 26 Aug 14

wippasnapper says...

All Cycle Network paths should be made accessible to all regardless of physically abilities if this is not the case as it is with many of B&HCC Cycle paths it is a clear discrimination towards people with disability’s and they should be held to account for the discrimination!
All Cycle Network paths should be made accessible to all regardless of physically abilities if this is not the case as it is with many of B&HCC Cycle paths it is a clear discrimination towards people with disability’s and they should be held to account for the discrimination! wippasnapper
  • Score: -1

9:53am Tue 26 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

wippasnapper wrote:
All Cycle Network paths should be made accessible to all regardless of physically abilities if this is not the case as it is with many of B&HCC Cycle paths it is a clear discrimination towards people with disability’s and they should be held to account for the discrimination!
You name one area that is not accessible to wheelchair users - which other cycle paths fail in this regard?
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: All Cycle Network paths should be made accessible to all regardless of physically abilities if this is not the case as it is with many of B&HCC Cycle paths it is a clear discrimination towards people with disability’s and they should be held to account for the discrimination![/p][/quote]You name one area that is not accessible to wheelchair users - which other cycle paths fail in this regard? brighton bluenose
  • Score: -1

10:43am Tue 26 Aug 14

wippasnapper says...

When my mobility scooter is back up and running correctly I will be getting out and about to record more unsuitable paths but I can reflect on two other paths that I have been down one be a rout through the top of Stanmer Woods witch runs inline with Ditchling Rd towards Ditchling Beacon where you come out on to a filed to get to the other Woods across the filed draining the wetter months as part of the filed is more of a bog you have to exit through a gate witch takes you out onto Ditchling Rd along to another gate to re-enter the filed before entering the Woods the problem is there is no path suitable or assessable for wheelchair users, the second route is along side the B&H A27 bypass heading west bound from Stanmer Woods on the north side when you get to the Patcham Bridge that takes you over to Patcham you have no assess as there are two concrete bollards blocking your assess further down the path there is a farmers gate close to the Travellers legal encampment assessable only to cyclists.

I have photographs if you wish to see them, you can contacted me V gowithbazza@gmail.co
m if you wish to see them.
When my mobility scooter is back up and running correctly I will be getting out and about to record more unsuitable paths but I can reflect on two other paths that I have been down one be a rout through the top of Stanmer Woods witch runs inline with Ditchling Rd towards Ditchling Beacon where you come out on to a filed to get to the other Woods across the filed draining the wetter months as part of the filed is more of a bog you have to exit through a gate witch takes you out onto Ditchling Rd along to another gate to re-enter the filed before entering the Woods the problem is there is no path suitable or assessable for wheelchair users, the second route is along side the B&H A27 bypass heading west bound from Stanmer Woods on the north side when you get to the Patcham Bridge that takes you over to Patcham you have no assess as there are two concrete bollards blocking your assess further down the path there is a farmers gate close to the Travellers legal encampment assessable only to cyclists. I have photographs if you wish to see them, you can contacted me V gowithbazza@gmail.co m if you wish to see them. wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

wippasnapper wrote:
When my mobility scooter is back up and running correctly I will be getting out and about to record more unsuitable paths but I can reflect on two other paths that I have been down one be a rout through the top of Stanmer Woods witch runs inline with Ditchling Rd towards Ditchling Beacon where you come out on to a filed to get to the other Woods across the filed draining the wetter months as part of the filed is more of a bog you have to exit through a gate witch takes you out onto Ditchling Rd along to another gate to re-enter the filed before entering the Woods the problem is there is no path suitable or assessable for wheelchair users, the second route is along side the B&H A27 bypass heading west bound from Stanmer Woods on the north side when you get to the Patcham Bridge that takes you over to Patcham you have no assess as there are two concrete bollards blocking your assess further down the path there is a farmers gate close to the Travellers legal encampment assessable only to cyclists.

I have photographs if you wish to see them, you can contacted me V gowithbazza@gmail.co

m if you wish to see them.
Now breathe.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: When my mobility scooter is back up and running correctly I will be getting out and about to record more unsuitable paths but I can reflect on two other paths that I have been down one be a rout through the top of Stanmer Woods witch runs inline with Ditchling Rd towards Ditchling Beacon where you come out on to a filed to get to the other Woods across the filed draining the wetter months as part of the filed is more of a bog you have to exit through a gate witch takes you out onto Ditchling Rd along to another gate to re-enter the filed before entering the Woods the problem is there is no path suitable or assessable for wheelchair users, the second route is along side the B&H A27 bypass heading west bound from Stanmer Woods on the north side when you get to the Patcham Bridge that takes you over to Patcham you have no assess as there are two concrete bollards blocking your assess further down the path there is a farmers gate close to the Travellers legal encampment assessable only to cyclists. I have photographs if you wish to see them, you can contacted me V gowithbazza@gmail.co m if you wish to see them.[/p][/quote]Now breathe. ok,jared
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Tue 26 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
notslimjim wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit wrote:
monkeymoo wrote:
How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'?
Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.
Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one.

But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!!
He was merely questioning the hype.
He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said!
But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all:

“It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.”

The poster you quoted merely opined:

" I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. "

The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ".

Try reading what people have actually written.
You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!!
What are you arguing about?

The fact that Lambert suggested that cyclist could help save the ferry, or the fact that another poster questioned the reasoning behind it?
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notslimjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: How will this cycle path 'help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure'? Please explain more Mr Rod Lambert.[/p][/quote]Yeah, I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. I guess Mr Lambert feels that as an English extension to the Avenue Verte (the old Dieppe-Paris rail line that is now a cycle path) the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry will survive as a cycle ferry as opposed to a car/lorry one. But you're right, it will of course make absolutely no difference to the ferry's future. He may as well have said the cycle path will help to preserve the Palace of Versailles.[/p][/quote]Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of your comment he is not actually saying that the ferry will survive taking bikes 'as opposed' to being a car ferry is he - just that it may help to save it! I'm sure you are aware of this so fail to see why you should twist this chaps words - perhaps you can explain?!![/p][/quote]He was merely questioning the hype.[/p][/quote]He said 'as opposed' which is a misrepresentation of what was said![/p][/quote]But that is what Lambert suggested when he claimed that an increase in use of the ferry by cyclists might just save the crossing from closure. His words weren't twisted at all: “It would be a beautiful addition to the Avenue Verte and could perhaps help turn Newhaven into the Cycling gateway to Europe and, in turn, help save the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry route from closure.” The poster you quoted merely opined: " I think the cycle path is a great idea but that really is a claim too far. " The claim in question being that increasing access for cyclists to the ferry "could perhaps help ". Try reading what people have actually written.[/p][/quote]You are boringly stupid as he clearly said the phrase that I quoted so the fact that you are quoting a totally different line just reinforces the fact that you are a tedious troll!![/p][/quote]What are you arguing about? The fact that Lambert suggested that cyclist could help save the ferry, or the fact that another poster questioned the reasoning behind it? ok,jared
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Tue 26 Aug 14

HamsterFangs says...

Egrets Way will link our international seaport with our county town, connecting seven villages along the Lower Ouse. These villages are only connected to each other and the major local employers in Newhaven and Lewes if you have a car. There are very few pavements along the C7, the train stops once an hour at Southease and buses are rarer than hens teeth.
The route is wide and flat, making it suitable for beginners, families and the less able. It's a wonderful scenic route with a rail station at each end and one in the middle, making it extremely accessible to those without their own transport.
Phase II (opened earlier this year) joins up a dead-end bridle route thus making it a viable loop for local horse riders. Phase II also links the rail station and Southease with the only village pub between Newhaven and Lewes, and also provides a rail link to the National Trust Monks House.
Egrets Way is planned to run on the West bank of the river allowing the Big Park in Peacehaven to be connected (over £2m spend from Veolia), adding a further 22,000 people in Peacehaven and Telscombe to access this splendid leisure and utility route.
At the Northern end is the new Falmer cycle route, at the Southern end is Avenue Verte and National Cycle Route 2, and in the middle is the South downs Way.
Seaford and Newhaven are nestled in the bottom of the Ouse Valley, and there are very few flat routes for beginner and family cyclists (The Seafront at Seaford is undergoing a trial). The Egrets Way will provide a flat and safe route for everyone of all ages and abilities to use the bikes that lay fallow in their sheds.
If you want to see some of these routes and how they will affect the thousands of families and less able to get into the country side then join in one of the bike rides http://cycleseahaven
.org.uk/tbp/
Egrets Way will link our international seaport with our county town, connecting seven villages along the Lower Ouse. These villages are only connected to each other and the major local employers in Newhaven and Lewes if you have a car. There are very few pavements along the C7, the train stops once an hour at Southease and buses are rarer than hens teeth. The route is wide and flat, making it suitable for beginners, families and the less able. It's a wonderful scenic route with a rail station at each end and one in the middle, making it extremely accessible to those without their own transport. Phase II (opened earlier this year) joins up a dead-end bridle route thus making it a viable loop for local horse riders. Phase II also links the rail station and Southease with the only village pub between Newhaven and Lewes, and also provides a rail link to the National Trust Monks House. Egrets Way is planned to run on the West bank of the river allowing the Big Park in Peacehaven to be connected (over £2m spend from Veolia), adding a further 22,000 people in Peacehaven and Telscombe to access this splendid leisure and utility route. At the Northern end is the new Falmer cycle route, at the Southern end is Avenue Verte and National Cycle Route 2, and in the middle is the South downs Way. Seaford and Newhaven are nestled in the bottom of the Ouse Valley, and there are very few flat routes for beginner and family cyclists (The Seafront at Seaford is undergoing a trial). The Egrets Way will provide a flat and safe route for everyone of all ages and abilities to use the bikes that lay fallow in their sheds. If you want to see some of these routes and how they will affect the thousands of families and less able to get into the country side then join in one of the bike rides http://cycleseahaven .org.uk/tbp/ HamsterFangs
  • Score: 1

9:41pm Tue 26 Aug 14

HamsterFangs says...

Ash Brighton wrote:
Sussex jim wrote:
£600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?
I would suspect more people than you realise.

While the path may not directly generate revenue per se, it does encourage cycling and walking helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle. Healthier people means less outgoings expenditure for the NHS in theory.

There is also the VAT generated from new walking and cycling enthusiast purchasing equipment.

Some people may choose to commute on that route if they work in that area, meaning potentially fewer cars on the road.

The revenue generated from this route is irrelevant in my opinion because roads are paid out of general taxation and cycling numbers are growing so it is only rational that facilities should be upgraded to accommodate these new road users.

The detail of the exact route are a bit vague. I presume at the moment if you wanted to cycle between these places that you would be forced onto country roads. I don't mind cycling these personally but I know a lot of people might be put off. This is because on these stretches of road, a larger than normal minority of drivers will pass you outrageously closely (within easy killing distance). Most of us also do not to like it when we create tailbacks (I do the responsible thing and pull over when safe to do so).
Some good points Ash Brighton.
SDNPA has funding to improve access to our new national park and its got to spent on that. Why not spend it on a route that already has massive local support, has already been surveyed and approved as a 'goer' by Sustrans, and gives access to/for rural communities that currently only have the car as a viable alternative?
Lewes and Newhaven are major employers to those of us living in the Ouse Valley and cycling is a scary option (but my only option as I don't have a car). Newhaven (and Peacehaven) are 'regeneration' areas, so funding is easier to direct towards these communities. It's also a hilly area with a very poor health record. Egrets Way will provide a flat and safe route connecting seven villages with the county town and our sea port, both major employment areas. Being flat it will be easy to for beginners, families and the less abled to have the option of "active travel" - aka the wonder drug.
As a member of the local cycling club I sympathise with car owners who get stuck behind cyclists on the C7 (the rural road between Lewes and Newhaven that gets snarled up every rush hour). I am able cycle the length of this road quicker than a car can drive during rush hour, so it's generally me being stuck behind cars.
I do try to pull over, but it only takes two minutes for cars to start piling up. If I keep pulling over every 60 seconds I'd never get home. Car drivers need to support spending on separate cycle infrastructure (like Egrets Way) so us cyclists can get off the dangerous roads where WE don't want to be either.
[quote][p][bold]Ash Brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: £600 000 is a lot of money for the Government to waste on a leisure pursuit that pays nothing in taxes. Unlike Brighton, where people cycle to work and other useful journeys, who is going to use this new path?[/p][/quote]I would suspect more people than you realise. While the path may not directly generate revenue per se, it does encourage cycling and walking helps people maintain a healthy lifestyle. Healthier people means less outgoings expenditure for the NHS in theory. There is also the VAT generated from new walking and cycling enthusiast purchasing equipment. Some people may choose to commute on that route if they work in that area, meaning potentially fewer cars on the road. The revenue generated from this route is irrelevant in my opinion because roads are paid out of general taxation and cycling numbers are growing so it is only rational that facilities should be upgraded to accommodate these new road users. The detail of the exact route are a bit vague. I presume at the moment if you wanted to cycle between these places that you would be forced onto country roads. I don't mind cycling these personally but I know a lot of people might be put off. This is because on these stretches of road, a larger than normal minority of drivers will pass you outrageously closely (within easy killing distance). Most of us also do not to like it when we create tailbacks (I do the responsible thing and pull over when safe to do so).[/p][/quote]Some good points Ash Brighton. SDNPA has funding to improve access to our new national park and its got to spent on that. Why not spend it on a route that already has massive local support, has already been surveyed and approved as a 'goer' by Sustrans, and gives access to/for rural communities that currently only have the car as a viable alternative? Lewes and Newhaven are major employers to those of us living in the Ouse Valley and cycling is a scary option (but my only option as I don't have a car). Newhaven (and Peacehaven) are 'regeneration' areas, so funding is easier to direct towards these communities. It's also a hilly area with a very poor health record. Egrets Way will provide a flat and safe route connecting seven villages with the county town and our sea port, both major employment areas. Being flat it will be easy to for beginners, families and the less abled to have the option of "active travel" - aka the wonder drug. As a member of the local cycling club I sympathise with car owners who get stuck behind cyclists on the C7 (the rural road between Lewes and Newhaven that gets snarled up every rush hour). I am able cycle the length of this road quicker than a car can drive during rush hour, so it's generally me being stuck behind cars. I do try to pull over, but it only takes two minutes for cars to start piling up. If I keep pulling over every 60 seconds I'd never get home. Car drivers need to support spending on separate cycle infrastructure (like Egrets Way) so us cyclists can get off the dangerous roads where WE don't want to be either. HamsterFangs
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree