Cyclists will soon be against the traffic flow

Cyclists will soon be against the traffic flow

Cyclists will soon be against the traffic flow

First published in News

CYCLISTS will soon be able to travel in both directions down two one-way streets.

Brighton and Hove City Council has agreed a traffic regulation order which will allow cyclists to travel against the flow of cars around the one-way streets of Ann Street and New England Street.

The order will also enforce a weight limit of 7.5 tonnes for vehicles using the roads, except for access in Providence Place between York Hill and St Peter’s Street for some addresses in New England Street and Ann Street.

Comments (56)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:51am Wed 27 Aug 14

fred clause says...

Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party.
Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party. fred clause
  • Score: 49

7:56am Wed 27 Aug 14

upsidedowntuctuc says...

Pity they don't address real issues
As they are all standi.ng down rather than be voted out in May they should go NOW Ian Davey get on your Bike you useless arogant car hater
Pity they don't address real issues As they are all standi.ng down rather than be voted out in May they should go NOW Ian Davey get on your Bike you useless arogant car hater upsidedowntuctuc
  • Score: 29

8:18am Wed 27 Aug 14

hoveguyactually says...

Welcome to Insanity City, where idiocy thrives. How many crackpot ideas will this council come up with before they are finally chucked out? Does one need to have a part of one's brain missing to be a member? Their obsession with making Brighton & Hove a cycling-only has lead to danger and frustration for all other road users and pedestrians, and still they continue to perpetrate their ridiculous ideas on the public. I wonder if they have ever been in a vehicle, when a cyclist suddenly appears from around a corner, riding the (currently) wrong way, and the driver has had to stop immediately to avoid driving into them. It is not a very happy situation.
Welcome to Insanity City, where idiocy thrives. How many crackpot ideas will this council come up with before they are finally chucked out? Does one need to have a part of one's brain missing to be a member? Their obsession with making Brighton & Hove a cycling-only has lead to danger and frustration for all other road users and pedestrians, and still they continue to perpetrate their ridiculous ideas on the public. I wonder if they have ever been in a vehicle, when a cyclist suddenly appears from around a corner, riding the (currently) wrong way, and the driver has had to stop immediately to avoid driving into them. It is not a very happy situation. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 33

8:28am Wed 27 Aug 14

We love Red Billy says...

A new word to describe a political party bent on wrecking a city before they are thrown out, an idiocracy. Up yours Ian Davey.
A new word to describe a political party bent on wrecking a city before they are thrown out, an idiocracy. Up yours Ian Davey. We love Red Billy
  • Score: 28

8:35am Wed 27 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning.
I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning. HJarrs
  • Score: -29

9:04am Wed 27 Aug 14

darcyp says...

HJarrs says...

I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning.


See your up nice and early too,i would be worried if I was you addiction to the Argus comments is an illness,and you have it real bad ;)
HJarrs says... I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning. See your up nice and early too,i would be worried if I was you addiction to the Argus comments is an illness,and you have it real bad ;) darcyp
  • Score: 14

9:29am Wed 27 Aug 14

lewes road low life says...

I am not a cycle hater, I am a keen cyclist but also drive daily in the town center for my work. This is not a new idea, infact it already exists in the center of town on several streets in kensington gardens area and trafalgar street. It seems a barmy idea and will just confuse drivers and pedestrians, especially those visiting the town and will only endanger cyclists and pedestrians, also it sends out the wrong message and will encourage cyclists to think its ok to travel the wrong way down any street,
I am not a cycle hater, I am a keen cyclist but also drive daily in the town center for my work. This is not a new idea, infact it already exists in the center of town on several streets in kensington gardens area and trafalgar street. It seems a barmy idea and will just confuse drivers and pedestrians, especially those visiting the town and will only endanger cyclists and pedestrians, also it sends out the wrong message and will encourage cyclists to think its ok to travel the wrong way down any street, lewes road low life
  • Score: 32

9:33am Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

Um..this is actually National Policy trialed successfully in London and has been used successfully throughout Europe for years

'The Government has already helped local authorities to provide for cyclists, for example by making it easier to introduce contraflow cycling using 'no entry except cyclists' signing. This was included in the area-wide authorisations sent to every local authority in England in October 2011. Contraflow cycling means that cyclists can use one-way streets to avoid the busiest roads and junctions.'

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/232611
/appcg-response.pdf
Um..this is actually National Policy trialed successfully in London and has been used successfully throughout Europe for years 'The Government has already helped local authorities to provide for cyclists, for example by making it easier to introduce contraflow cycling using 'no entry except cyclists' signing. This was included in the area-wide authorisations sent to every local authority in England in October 2011. Contraflow cycling means that cyclists can use one-way streets to avoid the busiest roads and junctions.' https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/232611 /appcg-response.pdf Worthing Jim
  • Score: -4

9:38am Wed 27 Aug 14

Fercri Sakes says...

fred clause wrote:
Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party.
A cheap and useful idea. Works well on the continent. Surely British drivers are up to the task of understanding it?

Now, selling the profitable bits of the NHS off to party donors. I believe that where everybody's vitriol should be directed, not to a local scheme that improves traffic flow.

I guess I'll never understand the majority of commentators here. Moaning about their guttering whilst their family silver is being robbed.
[quote][p][bold]fred clause[/bold] wrote: Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party.[/p][/quote]A cheap and useful idea. Works well on the continent. Surely British drivers are up to the task of understanding it? Now, selling the profitable bits of the NHS off to party donors. I believe that where everybody's vitriol should be directed, not to a local scheme that improves traffic flow. I guess I'll never understand the majority of commentators here. Moaning about their guttering whilst their family silver is being robbed. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -5

9:48am Wed 27 Aug 14

Wally Witless says...

Any cyclist worth his salt wouldn't adhere to traffic flow directions anyway, We (sorry, They) all think no entry signs mean Beware of the Low Flying Letterbox.
Any cyclist worth his salt wouldn't adhere to traffic flow directions anyway, We (sorry, They) all think no entry signs mean Beware of the Low Flying Letterbox. Wally Witless
  • Score: 13

10:13am Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
Um..this is actually National Policy trialed successfully in London and has been used successfully throughout Europe for years

'The Government has already helped local authorities to provide for cyclists, for example by making it easier to introduce contraflow cycling using 'no entry except cyclists' signing. This was included in the area-wide authorisations sent to every local authority in England in October 2011. Contraflow cycling means that cyclists can use one-way streets to avoid the busiest roads and junctions.'

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/232611

/appcg-response.pdf
The major problem is that all collisions between cyclists and other vehicles is that it is automatically deemed that the cyclist has right of way.

Unless there is a dedicated cycle lane,this idea should be discarded.
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: Um..this is actually National Policy trialed successfully in London and has been used successfully throughout Europe for years 'The Government has already helped local authorities to provide for cyclists, for example by making it easier to introduce contraflow cycling using 'no entry except cyclists' signing. This was included in the area-wide authorisations sent to every local authority in England in October 2011. Contraflow cycling means that cyclists can use one-way streets to avoid the busiest roads and junctions.' https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/232611 /appcg-response.pdf[/p][/quote]The major problem is that all collisions between cyclists and other vehicles is that it is automatically deemed that the cyclist has right of way. Unless there is a dedicated cycle lane,this idea should be discarded. ok,jared
  • Score: 11

11:44am Wed 27 Aug 14

Joshiman says...

Roll on May.I cannot see any responsible,logical thinking car driver ever voting for this car hating,gridlock causing,Co2 loving Council.
Roll on May.I cannot see any responsible,logical thinking car driver ever voting for this car hating,gridlock causing,Co2 loving Council. Joshiman
  • Score: 8

12:21pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Nosfaratu says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
fred clause wrote:
Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party.
A cheap and useful idea. Works well on the continent. Surely British drivers are up to the task of understanding it?

Now, selling the profitable bits of the NHS off to party donors. I believe that where everybody's vitriol should be directed, not to a local scheme that improves traffic flow.

I guess I'll never understand the majority of commentators here. Moaning about their guttering whilst their family silver is being robbed.
Sorry, but selling off the good bits of England has been going on for 50 years, no need to stop now. Not much left.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fred clause[/bold] wrote: Another wonderful pointless and crazy idea bought to you by the hopeless party.[/p][/quote]A cheap and useful idea. Works well on the continent. Surely British drivers are up to the task of understanding it? Now, selling the profitable bits of the NHS off to party donors. I believe that where everybody's vitriol should be directed, not to a local scheme that improves traffic flow. I guess I'll never understand the majority of commentators here. Moaning about their guttering whilst their family silver is being robbed.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but selling off the good bits of England has been going on for 50 years, no need to stop now. Not much left. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 4

12:27pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Nosfaratu says...

Another good reason to fit a Duvet to the front of your car.
Alternatively buy an IN-CAR-Camcorder to record the cyclists suicide attempt and give you a leg to stand up on in Court.
Another good reason to fit a Duvet to the front of your car. Alternatively buy an IN-CAR-Camcorder to record the cyclists suicide attempt and give you a leg to stand up on in Court. Nosfaratu
  • Score: 9

12:28pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Nosfaratu says...

We love Red Billy wrote:
A new word to describe a political party bent on wrecking a city before they are thrown out, an idiocracy. Up yours Ian Davey.
Who's 'Ian Davey' ?
[quote][p][bold]We love Red Billy[/bold] wrote: A new word to describe a political party bent on wrecking a city before they are thrown out, an idiocracy. Up yours Ian Davey.[/p][/quote]Who's 'Ian Davey' ? Nosfaratu
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Gribbet says...

As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new. Gribbet
  • Score: -8

1:05pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?

And who does this system actually 'work' for?

" while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists."

It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice?


It's a thoroughly stupid idea.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes? And who does this system actually 'work' for? " while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists." It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice? It's a thoroughly stupid idea. ok,jared
  • Score: 9

1:29pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?

And who does this system actually 'work' for?

" while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists."

It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice?


It's a thoroughly stupid idea.
This is going to fall on deaf ears but anyway...

You design cycle lanes or segregated tracks on roads with higher motor traffic speeds or larger traffic volumes. The greater the chance for motoring idiocy, the greater the degree of separation. A 70mph dual carriageway should have a wide cycle track designed next to it as it can also be used by maintenance vehicles without shutting down a vehicle lane. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples just across the North Sea.

The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples across the North Sea.

In fact, across the North Sea, the speed limit in residential streets is not 20 mph but 18 mph (30 kph). Let your minds deal with that for a minute :)
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes? And who does this system actually 'work' for? " while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists." It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice? It's a thoroughly stupid idea.[/p][/quote]This is going to fall on deaf ears but anyway... You design cycle lanes or segregated tracks on roads with higher motor traffic speeds or larger traffic volumes. The greater the chance for motoring idiocy, the greater the degree of separation. A 70mph dual carriageway should have a wide cycle track designed next to it as it can also be used by maintenance vehicles without shutting down a vehicle lane. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples just across the North Sea. The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are [supposed to be] much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples across the North Sea. In fact, across the North Sea, the speed limit in residential streets is not 20 mph but 18 mph (30 kph). Let your minds deal with that for a minute :) Worthing Jim
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 27 Aug 14

hoveguyactually says...

Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down.
Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down. Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 7

2:09pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

2:09pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down.
Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents.
Sorry, but this is anecdotal.

And to repeat...

The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples across the North Sea.

It appears that the good expert motorists of Brighton & Hove appear to be beyond received wisdom and ideas that have had proven success.
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down. Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but this is anecdotal. And to repeat... The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. This has been proven to work and there are countless examples across the North Sea. It appears that the good expert motorists of Brighton & Hove appear to be beyond received wisdom and ideas that have had proven success. Worthing Jim
  • Score: -1

2:15pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
What absolute tosh.

Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow.

But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.[/p][/quote]What absolute tosh. Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 2

2:28pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
What absolute tosh.

Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow.

But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.
So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.[/p][/quote]What absolute tosh. Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.[/p][/quote]So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds? ok,jared
  • Score: -3

2:30pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. "

In what way is a normal one-way street 'hostile' to cyclists?

The traffic is travelling in the same direction just as they are when two carriageways are being used.
"It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. " In what way is a normal one-way street 'hostile' to cyclists? The traffic is travelling in the same direction just as they are when two carriageways are being used. ok,jared
  • Score: 1

2:34pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
What absolute tosh.

Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow.

But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.
So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?
No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.[/p][/quote]What absolute tosh. Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.[/p][/quote]So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?[/p][/quote]No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 2

2:37pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
What absolute tosh.

Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow.

But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.
So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?
No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me.
"No, that's not what I'm saying...."


Then don't quote me saying:

" At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. "

and then write:

"What absolute tosh. "


OED: 'absolute' - Not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.[/p][/quote]What absolute tosh. Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.[/p][/quote]So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?[/p][/quote]No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me.[/p][/quote]"No, that's not what I'm saying...." Then don't quote me saying: " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. " and then write: "What absolute tosh. " OED: 'absolute' - Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. ok,jared
  • Score: -4

2:39pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
"It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. "

In what way is a normal one-way street 'hostile' to cyclists?

The traffic is travelling in the same direction just as they are when two carriageways are being used.
Good grief, think.

A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van.

Got that?
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. " In what way is a normal one-way street 'hostile' to cyclists? The traffic is travelling in the same direction just as they are when two carriageways are being used.[/p][/quote]Good grief, think. A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van. Got that? Worthing Jim
  • Score: 1

2:41pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability.

The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist.

We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.
What absolute tosh.

Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow.

But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.
So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?
No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me.
"No, that's not what I'm saying...."


Then don't quote me saying:

" At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. "

and then write:

"What absolute tosh. "


OED: 'absolute' - Not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
You haven't actually answered the point I was making. Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower?
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "The roads that would be considered for 'No Entry Except Cyclists' would be in residential areas or the centre of towns/cities where traffic speeds are much lower. Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. The notion of 'negotiating' highlights the fact that both will be aiming for the same bit of tarmac. Vehicles cannot 'negotiate' cramped roads (of the type you suggested) without creating a danger that didn't previously exist. We have seen the accidents which occur when vehicles and bicycles are using the same road travelling in the same direction.[/p][/quote]What absolute tosh. Again, these are ideas that have been around for years elsewhere and have been very successful. It keeps vehicle speeds down and encourages people to make short trips by bicycle as they no longer have to negotiate often hostile one way systems (often taking to the pavement due to the subjective danger which benefits no-one) designed purely to regulate motor traffic flow. But I'm sure an expert such as yourself would have taken all this into consideration. The Dutch are probably four decades ahead of us with regards transport planning. They might as well be on the Moon.[/p][/quote]So you're claiming that cyclists are MORE stable at low speeds?[/p][/quote]No, that's not what I'm saying, although if one were to buy a traditional British roadster or Dutch Bike it certainly allows the rider to carry loads of shopping and at more civilised, sedate speeds. I'm saying that a cyclist riding to the shops will be going at a constant speed up to 20mph and this new system will help accommodate this. Why you think everyone is suddenly going to ride as if through an earthquake is quite beyond me.[/p][/quote]"No, that's not what I'm saying...." Then don't quote me saying: " At lower speeds, cyclist have less control over their machine because it loses its stability. " and then write: "What absolute tosh. " OED: 'absolute' - Not qualified or diminished in any way; total.[/p][/quote]You haven't actually answered the point I was making. Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower? Worthing Jim
  • Score: 2

2:47pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

" Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower?"

You stated:

" Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

which implies that the cyclists will be 'going round' cars that are driving towards them. the speed of all vehicles will be necessarily reduced in order for that 'negotiation to occur successfully without incident.

Cycles lose stability at lower speeds, thus increasing the danger when using these particular roads.
" Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower?" You stated: " Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " which implies that the cyclists will be 'going round' cars that are driving towards them. the speed of all vehicles will be necessarily reduced in order for that 'negotiation to occur successfully without incident. Cycles lose stability at lower speeds, thus increasing the danger when using these particular roads. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

2:51pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van."

You failed to explain why you consider a normal gyratory to be 'hostile' to cyclists.
"A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van." You failed to explain why you consider a normal gyratory to be 'hostile' to cyclists. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

2:52pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
" Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower?"

You stated:

" Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. "

which implies that the cyclists will be 'going round' cars that are driving towards them. the speed of all vehicles will be necessarily reduced in order for that 'negotiation to occur successfully without incident.

Cycles lose stability at lower speeds, thus increasing the danger when using these particular roads.
I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented.

Sorry to ruin your pedantic moment. :)
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: " Why do you think cyclists will suddenly be going all wobbly and slower?" You stated: " Lower speeds mean it is easier for a car and bicycle to negotiate round each other. " which implies that the cyclists will be 'going round' cars that are driving towards them. the speed of all vehicles will be necessarily reduced in order for that 'negotiation to occur successfully without incident. Cycles lose stability at lower speeds, thus increasing the danger when using these particular roads.[/p][/quote]I meant [in theory] motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented. Sorry to ruin your pedantic moment. :) Worthing Jim
  • Score: 1

2:57pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
"A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van."

You failed to explain why you consider a normal gyratory to be 'hostile' to cyclists.
A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling.

One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged.

I hope this clarifies it
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A one way street has been made so because of motor vehicles. By pushing bicycle riders onto hostile or needlessly time consuming gyratories and one way systems means that the simplest mode of transport is being needlessly punished. Less physical effort is required giving bicycle riders and pedestrians more direct routes (such as contr-flow on one way streets) which is a particular benefit to more elderly riders and those that regard the bicycle as a mobility aid. Cycling suddenly becomes more accessible to more people which means (in theory) less cars, making it easier for those that do need to get somewhere by car or van." You failed to explain why you consider a normal gyratory to be 'hostile' to cyclists.[/p][/quote]A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling. One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged. I hope this clarifies it Worthing Jim
  • Score: 2

3:11pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was. ok,jared
  • Score: -4

3:14pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

3:20pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn* Worthing Jim
  • Score: 2

3:21pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
But they can be.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.[/p][/quote]But they can be. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 1

3:32pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

3:33pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
But they can be.
If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.[/p][/quote]But they can be.[/p][/quote]If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

3:43pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
But they can be.
If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.
Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists.

This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense.

Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.[/p][/quote]But they can be.[/p][/quote]If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.[/p][/quote]Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists. This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense. Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 1

4:36pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
But they can be.
If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.
Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists.

This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense.

Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is.
But they are designed to be used by all road users, so the alleged hostility in question doesn't arise from that.

One-way systems were designed to improve traffic flow where the streets were considered too narrow. Introducing contraflow cycling means placing cyclists back into the old two-way flow. How can they be safer than travelling in the same direction as everyone else?
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.[/p][/quote]But they can be.[/p][/quote]If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.[/p][/quote]Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists. This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense. Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is.[/p][/quote]But they are designed to be used by all road users, so the alleged hostility in question doesn't arise from that. One-way systems were designed to improve traffic flow where the streets were considered too narrow. Introducing contraflow cycling means placing cyclists back into the old two-way flow. How can they be safer than travelling in the same direction as everyone else? ok,jared
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

5:17pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
Contraflow cycling allows greater directness and connectivity for cycling and more importantly those wishing to cycle.
It helps keep motor vehicle speeds down.
Yes, it should see an increase in people on bicycles, particularly for shorter trips but the pay off is they leave their cars behind.
It 'worked in Continental Europe for all road users, but in particular the residents of these streets who didn't have to go round the block on a bike where a direct route would have been easier. More motorists taking to bikes means safer motorists when they get behind a wheel as know to be aware of cyclists.
If it leads to more accidents, it would fly in the face of all evidence collated here and overseas.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment.[/p][/quote]Contraflow cycling allows greater directness and connectivity for cycling and more importantly those wishing to cycle. It helps keep motor vehicle speeds down. Yes, it should see an increase in people on bicycles, particularly for shorter trips but the pay off is they leave their cars behind. It 'worked in Continental Europe for all road users, but in particular the residents of these streets who didn't have to go round the block on a bike where a direct route would have been easier. More motorists taking to bikes means safer motorists when they get behind a wheel as know to be aware of cyclists. If it leads to more accidents, it would fly in the face of all evidence collated here and overseas. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Worthing Jim says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists.

They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts.

Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists?

"One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged."

Impatient motorists are everywhere.

That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.
But they can be.
If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.
Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists.

This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense.

Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is.
But they are designed to be used by all road users, so the alleged hostility in question doesn't arise from that.

One-way systems were designed to improve traffic flow where the streets were considered too narrow. Introducing contraflow cycling means placing cyclists back into the old two-way flow. How can they be safer than travelling in the same direction as everyone else?
How is providing for the smallest mode of transport so difficult on narrow streets when catering for the big metal boxes seems so simple? You couldn't make it up really. It is certainly hostile when used as a rat run (an important point which you ignored). It means motorists have to look at what they're doing for a change.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." But you haven't explained how such systems are 'hostile' to cyclists. They are no different to any other system, including roundabouts. Are you claiming that the existence of roundabouts is 'hostile' to cyclists? "One way systems (such as exist in the Lanes) mean that cyclists have to take circuitous routes exerting more energy making cycling less desirable and even hostile due to impatient motorists etc. This new system changes that as a bicycle is less resource and space hungry than a car and therefore should be encouraged." Impatient motorists are everywhere. That doesn't mean that one-way systems are hostile to cyclists.[/p][/quote]But they can be.[/p][/quote]If used correctly, they cannot possibly be 'hostile' to cyclists.[/p][/quote]Subjectively they can be very hostile, sometimes making them go completely out of the way to where they need to go and especially if they are rat runs for motorists. This latest solution is also cheaper to council budgets if you needed another positive. Before, if a council wished to operate a cycling contraflow system in a one-way street, it had to create a separate entry point for cyclists which could mean extensive road works and considerable expense. Traffic experts believe that it was the creation of one-way systems around Britain’s town and cities that discouraged many cyclists from undertaking what were once short, urban journeys which were lengthened by unnecessary one-way detours. To reiterate, in many European countries and cities, notably Brussels, cyclists routinely have two-way access to what are nominally one-way streets. Funnily enough, it's not quite the Armageddon you probably think it is.[/p][/quote]But they are designed to be used by all road users, so the alleged hostility in question doesn't arise from that. One-way systems were designed to improve traffic flow where the streets were considered too narrow. Introducing contraflow cycling means placing cyclists back into the old two-way flow. How can they be safer than travelling in the same direction as everyone else?[/p][/quote]How is providing for the smallest mode of transport so difficult on narrow streets when catering for the big metal boxes seems so simple? You couldn't make it up really. It is certainly hostile when used as a rat run (an important point which you ignored). It means motorists have to look at what they're doing for a change. Worthing Jim
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
Contraflow cycling allows greater directness and connectivity for cycling and more importantly those wishing to cycle.
It helps keep motor vehicle speeds down.
Yes, it should see an increase in people on bicycles, particularly for shorter trips but the pay off is they leave their cars behind.
It 'worked in Continental Europe for all road users, but in particular the residents of these streets who didn't have to go round the block on a bike where a direct route would have been easier. More motorists taking to bikes means safer motorists when they get behind a wheel as know to be aware of cyclists.
If it leads to more accidents, it would fly in the face of all evidence collated here and overseas.
And what happens when there isn't room for a dedicated cycle path flowing against the traffic?
[quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment.[/p][/quote]Contraflow cycling allows greater directness and connectivity for cycling and more importantly those wishing to cycle. It helps keep motor vehicle speeds down. Yes, it should see an increase in people on bicycles, particularly for shorter trips but the pay off is they leave their cars behind. It 'worked in Continental Europe for all road users, but in particular the residents of these streets who didn't have to go round the block on a bike where a direct route would have been easier. More motorists taking to bikes means safer motorists when they get behind a wheel as know to be aware of cyclists. If it leads to more accidents, it would fly in the face of all evidence collated here and overseas.[/p][/quote]And what happens when there isn't room for a dedicated cycle path flowing against the traffic? ok,jared
  • Score: -1

7:13pm Wed 27 Aug 14

HJarrs says...

ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment.[/p][/quote]I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo HJarrs
  • Score: -2

7:41pm Wed 27 Aug 14

melee says...

"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling."

I would think cycling against multiple lanes of oncoming traffic would be more likely to put people off cycling! It's one thing to be talking about cyclists going the wrong way down a small one-way street (plenty of them do that already from what I see), surely quite another to introduce multiple lanes of traffic to the mix. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
"A gyratory is often multi lane and therefore poses subjective danger which puts people off cycling." I would think cycling against multiple lanes of oncoming traffic would be more likely to put people off cycling! It's one thing to be talking about cyclists going the wrong way down a small one-way street (plenty of them do that already from what I see), surely quite another to introduce multiple lanes of traffic to the mix. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. melee
  • Score: 1

8:11pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Gribbet says...

ok,jared wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?

And who does this system actually 'work' for?

" while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists."

It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice?


It's a thoroughly stupid idea.
"If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?"

Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street.

"And who does this system actually 'work' for?"

People who cycle.

"It reduces the width of the road, for a start."

Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing.

"Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car."

This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car.

"will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?"

Yes.

PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes? And who does this system actually 'work' for? " while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists." It reduces the width of the road, for a start. Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car - will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them? How the h*ll would that work in practice? It's a thoroughly stupid idea.[/p][/quote]"If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?" Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street. "And who does this system actually 'work' for?" People who cycle. "It reduces the width of the road, for a start." Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing. "Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car." This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car. "will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?" Yes. PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea. Gribbet
  • Score: -1

8:22pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Gribbet says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.
It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down.
Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents.
You're confused. For starters go to google maps and take a look at the streets where these contra-flow systems will be introduced, then you might not feel so outraged. Can I also suggest that when you're driving along a road with clear contra-flow markings, you don't drive over them and stay on the correct side of the road, that way you won't have your problem "when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it."
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: As we'd expect the Argus's usual mob of fuming backward types that define themselves as 'motorists' will see this as a new infringement of their basic human right to plough around town without thinking about other people. Anyone who uses a bike though, will know that this is a tried and tested solution that actually works, while not actually making life any more difficult for motorists. I think those who get angry over a contra-flow system have a problem in general with the concept of sharing, but the concept of driving with care and consideration shouldn't be anything new.[/p][/quote]It has nothing to do with sharing. The problem lies when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it. The motorists then have to pull up very sharply to avoid an accident. I have seen this several times where it is illegal for any road user to go the wrong way. In one situation it was a group of cyclists, who then gestured with two fingers at the drivers who had nearly run them down. Today, within minutes I was passed by cyclists on a pavement in New Church Road, when there were hardly any vehicles on the road at the time. They are certainly not a good advertisement for responsible cycling. The contra flow proposition will only make their behaviour worse. Brighton & Hove Council should think really carefully about this if they wish to avoid accidents.[/p][/quote]You're confused. For starters go to google maps and take a look at the streets where these contra-flow systems will be introduced, then you might not feel so outraged. Can I also suggest that when you're driving along a road with clear contra-flow markings, you don't drive over them and stay on the correct side of the road, that way you won't have your problem "when a cyclist suddenly appears, often from around a corner, driving towards the traffic, not alongside it." Gribbet
  • Score: -2

8:47pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

" "If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?"

Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street."

It isn't illegal to cycle on a road that doesn't have a cycle lane.

Neither is it illegal to cycle against the traffic on a contraflow road if there isn't a cycle lane.

What a pathetic response to a question that I didn't ask.

" "It reduces the width of the road, for a start."

Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing." "

What a stupid response. At no point have I indicated that cycles shouldn't use the roads in the absence of a cycle lane.

" "Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car."

This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car. "

So the statement didn't make sense but you managed to make sense of it whilst avoiding the point I was making.

Was that deliberate?

" "will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?"

Yes."

But you suggested that all such routes would have a cycle lane for oncoming cyclists, lol.


I love it when people argue against themselves.

"PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea."

I'm a cyclist and I think this is a stupid idea.
" "If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?" Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street." It isn't illegal to cycle on a road that doesn't have a cycle lane. Neither is it illegal to cycle against the traffic on a contraflow road if there isn't a cycle lane. What a pathetic response to a question that I didn't ask. " "It reduces the width of the road, for a start." Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing." " What a stupid response. At no point have I indicated that cycles shouldn't use the roads in the absence of a cycle lane. " "Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car." This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car. " So the statement didn't make sense but you managed to make sense of it whilst avoiding the point I was making. Was that deliberate? " "will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?" Yes." But you suggested that all such routes would have a cycle lane for oncoming cyclists, lol. I love it when people argue against themselves. "PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea." I'm a cyclist and I think this is a stupid idea. ok,jared
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Wed 27 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

HJarrs wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo
Neither poster made that point, so I do hope you feel as stupid as you normally do.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment.[/p][/quote]I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo[/p][/quote]Neither poster made that point, so I do hope you feel as stupid as you normally do. ok,jared
  • Score: 1

10:16pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

HJarrs wrote:
I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning.
And the usual car haters !
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: I see the usual cycle haters are up early this morning.[/p][/quote]And the usual car haters ! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 1

10:24pm Wed 27 Aug 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

As w all know cyclists have been doing this illegally for years, it seems our Greens are now rewarding bad behaviour - but why would anyone be surprised at that !
As w all know cyclists have been doing this illegally for years, it seems our Greens are now rewarding bad behaviour - but why would anyone be surprised at that ! Idontbelieveit1948
  • Score: 1

11:30am Thu 28 Aug 14

Gribbet says...

ok,jared wrote:
" "If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?"

Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street."

It isn't illegal to cycle on a road that doesn't have a cycle lane.

Neither is it illegal to cycle against the traffic on a contraflow road if there isn't a cycle lane.

What a pathetic response to a question that I didn't ask.

" "It reduces the width of the road, for a start."

Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing." "

What a stupid response. At no point have I indicated that cycles shouldn't use the roads in the absence of a cycle lane.

" "Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car."

This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car. "

So the statement didn't make sense but you managed to make sense of it whilst avoiding the point I was making.

Was that deliberate?

" "will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?"

Yes."

But you suggested that all such routes would have a cycle lane for oncoming cyclists, lol.


I love it when people argue against themselves.

"PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea."

I'm a cyclist and I think this is a stupid idea.
Ok, you seem very confused now, but that's not surprising seeing as you're a bit of a robot and don't appear to know anything first hand about the roads in question. We've established by now, from your previous posts that you live in Crawley, so why are you getting so confused and angry about a contra-flow cycling system around Sainsbury's in Brighton?

Like I said, if you'd ever driven or cycled down the roads in question, you probably wouldn't feel so outraged.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: " "If using the roads is that safe for cyclists, why the need for cycle lanes?" Because without them it would be illegal to cycle against the traffic flow of a one-way street." It isn't illegal to cycle on a road that doesn't have a cycle lane. Neither is it illegal to cycle against the traffic on a contraflow road if there isn't a cycle lane. What a pathetic response to a question that I didn't ask. " "It reduces the width of the road, for a start." Road is wide enough, you just don't like sharing." " What a stupid response. At no point have I indicated that cycles shouldn't use the roads in the absence of a cycle lane. " "Also, the Highway Code requires a motorist to overtake a cyclist as if giving enough road to another car." This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you're trying to explain that the highway code advises to overtake a cyclist giving the same amount of clearance that you would give when overtaking a car. " So the statement didn't make sense but you managed to make sense of it whilst avoiding the point I was making. Was that deliberate? " "will the same apply if the cyclist is heading towards them?" Yes." But you suggested that all such routes would have a cycle lane for oncoming cyclists, lol. I love it when people argue against themselves. "PS. I doubt you ever drive down the roads in question. If you knew these roads, you might not think it was a stupid idea." I'm a cyclist and I think this is a stupid idea.[/p][/quote]Ok, you seem very confused now, but that's not surprising seeing as you're a bit of a robot and don't appear to know anything first hand about the roads in question. We've established by now, from your previous posts that you live in Crawley, so why are you getting so confused and angry about a contra-flow cycling system around Sainsbury's in Brighton? Like I said, if you'd ever driven or cycled down the roads in question, you probably wouldn't feel so outraged. Gribbet
  • Score: -1

11:34am Thu 28 Aug 14

Gribbet says...

ok,jared wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Worthing Jim wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented."

Where was that proven, exactly?

I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.
This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark.

Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea.

I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though.

I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*
"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark."

In what way has this 'worked', and for who?

" I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating."

It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use.

" I can only assume you are trolling "

A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation.

I've seen that in yours.

You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general.

On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.
You really don't get it do you? :)

Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.
So you can't explain your own comment.
I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo
Neither poster made that point, so I do hope you feel as stupid as you normally do.
I also think your obsessive pedantry thing is pretty tedious.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Worthing Jim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I meant motor traffic reduces it's speed as there are more cyclists about. - again, as has been proved to work everywhere else it's been implemented." Where was that proven, exactly? I note that you've dropped the 'negotiating' aspect from your comment - I'm not surprised, given how flawed that argument was.[/p][/quote]This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark. Also in a trial in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating. Clearly it does though. I can only assume you are trolling as this is quite elemental stuff. How is 'my argument' flawed? *sits back and gets popcorn*[/p][/quote]"This has been proven to work in The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark." In what way has this 'worked', and for who? " I guess I dropped 'negotiate' because it had already been said and did';t need repeating." It still needs explaining as to what you meant by its use. " I can only assume you are trolling " A troll is someone who posts comments in a deliberate attempt to receive a response, usually by including statements that require explanation. I've seen that in yours. You claimed that contraflow cycling increases the numbers of cyclists on the road system in general. On Brighton's crowded streets, that can only lead to yet more accidents involving bicycles.[/p][/quote]You really don't get it do you? :) Go to the Netherlands - spoil yourself. See it in action.[/p][/quote]So you can't explain your own comment.[/p][/quote]I think the point is that you are tedious Stevo[/p][/quote]Neither poster made that point, so I do hope you feel as stupid as you normally do.[/p][/quote]I also think your obsessive pedantry thing is pretty tedious. HTH Gribbet
  • Score: -1

4:19pm Thu 28 Aug 14

G Wiley says...

@Gribbet and @HJarrs - sorry I've been away since yesterday morning and been unable to respond to your useless comments. Never mind - back now...

As you are probably aware most of us 'don't care a d*mn' any more about your sycophantic support of this loathsome party - come this time next year they will (hopefully) be destined to the rubbish heap of bad political mistakes.

Can anyone really imagine what this city would be like another 4 years of those incompetent arrogant irresponsible immature idiots trying to run the asylum?

I am actually impressed to see that cyclists are now allowed to legally ride in the opposite direction to traffic on roads. I thought they had been doing this ever since pro-bike anti-reality Davey started his anti-car crusade and encouraged cyclists to ignore ignore the highway code, and traffic signs and treat pavements as an extension of the road anyway.

At least it gave this buffoon another reason to waste public money on signs and lines and put more money onto the coffers of the road marking company.

But, thankfully, he will be gone soon, alongside the other duffers who screwed up their tenure - Biil, Jason and Anya- probably to be replaced by more watermelon types more interested in progressing their own arrogant activist socialist progressive policies than being at all worried about environment, residents, businesses or visitors.

It was interesting driving back from Leeds and seeing how many towns and cities have proper out-of-town park-and-ride or parkway facilities to actually try to help motorists reduce congestion - if only Davey had tried to do this as a real positive benefit to the city - rather than painting white lines and sticking up plastic signs everywhere that everyone seems to ignore.
@Gribbet and @HJarrs - sorry I've been away since yesterday morning and been unable to respond to your useless comments. Never mind - back now... As you are probably aware most of us 'don't care a d*mn' any more about your sycophantic support of this loathsome party - come this time next year they will (hopefully) be destined to the rubbish heap of bad political mistakes. Can anyone really imagine what this city would be like another 4 years of those incompetent arrogant irresponsible immature idiots trying to run the asylum? I am actually impressed to see that cyclists are now allowed to legally ride in the opposite direction to traffic on roads. I thought they had been doing this ever since pro-bike anti-reality Davey started his anti-car crusade and encouraged cyclists to ignore ignore the highway code, and traffic signs and treat pavements as an extension of the road anyway. At least it gave this buffoon another reason to waste public money on signs and lines and put more money onto the coffers of the road marking company. But, thankfully, he will be gone soon, alongside the other duffers who screwed up their tenure - Biil, Jason and Anya- probably to be replaced by more watermelon types more interested in progressing their own arrogant activist socialist progressive policies than being at all worried about environment, residents, businesses or visitors. It was interesting driving back from Leeds and seeing how many towns and cities have proper out-of-town park-and-ride or parkway facilities to actually try to help motorists reduce congestion - if only Davey had tried to do this as a real positive benefit to the city - rather than painting white lines and sticking up plastic signs everywhere that everyone seems to ignore. G Wiley
  • 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