Police crackdown on Brighton cyclists

Police launched a crackdown on cyclists in St James's Street, Brighton

Police launched a crackdown on cyclists in St James's Street, Brighton

First published in News by

Police have launched a crackdown on cyclists riding the wrong way down a one-way street.

PCs and community support officers have been stopping cyclists caught pedalling on the pavement or the wrong way down St James’s Street in Brighton.

More than 40 cyclists were stopped in the project and asked to fill out a Sussex Police cycling questionnaire instead of the usual £30 fine.

The crackdown has been in force since 2005 when a man was knocked down by a cyclist going the wrong way down Laburnum Grove and spent seven weeks in hospital with a shattered pelvis.

The narrow street is used by a number of buses and although there have not been any recent serious incidents, police are concerned that illegal cycling could cause another accident.

A police spokeswoman said: "Officers and police community support officers conducted the operation following renewed complaints from local shop keepers and residents about cyclists who blatantly ignore the law and cycle against the flow of the one-way traffic or on the pavement.

"This is an extremely busy street and it is only going to be a matter of time before somebody else is seriously injured."

Ben Duncan, Green Party councillor for Queen's Park, welcomed the police operation but has called for a “radical solution” to the problem.

He said: “I think it is fantastic that PCSOs are stopping people going the wrong way down the road. It is very hazardous for people when cyclists come hurtling down the road.

“In my conversations with shoppers and businesses it is a really big problem for people and I know of incidents of pedestrians being hit by cyclists.

“My personal belief is that you can't have a one-way system going up a hill and a radical solution is needed to perhaps make traffic adjustments.”

The police questionnaire is aimed at understanding how the council and police can make the road safer for both cyclists and pedestrians.

Luis Tavares, a fisherman, agreed that St James’s Street can be hazardous.

The 28-year-old said: “Cyclists can be dangerous and they shouldn't be going down the wrong way.

"Some cyclists should have proper training and they should take responsibility as you can kill people.

"I saw an old lady get hit by a bike the other day and I have been close to hitting people before myself."

Do you support the crackdown on cyclists? Tell us what you think below.

Comments (89)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:19am Thu 6 Aug 09

King from Hove says...

Do the same on the Kings Esplanade which can be a death trap for pedestrians especially the elderley.SILLY Questionaires is not the answer.On the spot fines! end of.
Do the same on the Kings Esplanade which can be a death trap for pedestrians especially the elderley.SILLY Questionaires is not the answer.On the spot fines! end of. King from Hove
  • Score: 0

8:19am Thu 6 Aug 09

lorrie2 says...

Its not just james st, How many cyclists do I see riding on the pavement on london rd every day, theres a cycle lane right next to them.And also cyclists riding through red lights, especally at preston circus, only a matter of time before someone is killed!
Its not just james st, How many cyclists do I see riding on the pavement on london rd every day, theres a cycle lane right next to them.And also cyclists riding through red lights, especally at preston circus, only a matter of time before someone is killed! lorrie2
  • Score: 0

8:24am Thu 6 Aug 09

miasc says...

about time just because they ride bikes shouldnt make them above the law
about time just because they ride bikes shouldnt make them above the law miasc
  • Score: 0

8:25am Thu 6 Aug 09

salty_pete says...

That this "crackdown" has been going on since 2005, says it all really. Obviously a radical approach is needed as a namby pamby questionaire is doing no good at all. Maybe the confiscation of the bicycle for a week would do the trick.
That this "crackdown" has been going on since 2005, says it all really. Obviously a radical approach is needed as a namby pamby questionaire is doing no good at all. Maybe the confiscation of the bicycle for a week would do the trick. salty_pete
  • Score: 0

8:32am Thu 6 Aug 09

Osama bin there says...

salty_pete wrote:
That this "crackdown" has been going on since 2005, says it all really. Obviously a radical approach is needed as a namby pamby questionaire is doing no good at all. Maybe the confiscation of the bicycle for a week would do the trick.
Imposing the £30 fine every single time would send the right message.
What use is a questionnaire?
I see someone cycling the wrong way nearly every time I drive up there - and they look at me as though I'm in the wrong!
[quote][p][bold]salty_pete[/bold] wrote: That this "crackdown" has been going on since 2005, says it all really. Obviously a radical approach is needed as a namby pamby questionaire is doing no good at all. Maybe the confiscation of the bicycle for a week would do the trick. [/p][/quote]Imposing the £30 fine every single time would send the right message. What use is a questionnaire? I see someone cycling the wrong way nearly every time I drive up there - and they look at me as though I'm in the wrong! Osama bin there
  • Score: 0

8:44am Thu 6 Aug 09

BiggerH says...

maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed

come on police - do something useful
maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful BiggerH
  • Score: 0

8:56am Thu 6 Aug 09

Osama bin there says...

BiggerH wrote:
maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful
Yes, stop cyclists constantly breaking the law.
They are a menace to other road users and pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful [/p][/quote]Yes, stop cyclists constantly breaking the law. They are a menace to other road users and pedestrians. Osama bin there
  • Score: 0

8:57am Thu 6 Aug 09

mark 62 says...

BiggerH wrote:
maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful
its not the bus drivers fault is idiots with phones, or ipods that constantly walk across roads without looking, north st has had thousands spent, and people still cross the road between busses! jaywalking should be banned. town is full of idiots.
[quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful [/p][/quote]its not the bus drivers fault is idiots with phones, or ipods that constantly walk across roads without looking, north st has had thousands spent, and people still cross the road between busses! jaywalking should be banned. town is full of idiots. mark 62
  • Score: 0

9:03am Thu 6 Aug 09

Andy R says...

Yes..a funny story all round. Police "have launched a crackdown"....but apparently the "launch" was some 4 years ago....?
Yes..a funny story all round. Police "have launched a crackdown"....but apparently the "launch" was some 4 years ago....? Andy R
  • Score: 0

9:09am Thu 6 Aug 09

Harry Callahan says...

As a sensible cyclist who obeys all of the laws of the road I get really annoyed with idiot cyclists who don't. I also wear a cycle helmet, hi-vis clothing, and have enough lights to light up a small village and yet some motorists still don't see me (or pretend not to see me), the thing is it's all about tolerance and a bit of give and take, for example cyclists are in certain circumstances allowed to cycle on the pavement however they must do so in a considerate manner, also how many motorists know that by law cyclists can ride two abreast? not many I guess by the amount of times I get hooted at whilst I'm out with my wife (once even by a police car, the officers were extremely embarrassed when I told THEM the law and they checked it with their C.I. only to find I was right). It's about time a)some cyclists started to behave in the correct manner and show some responsibility b)people showed a bit more tolerance towards cyclists (the sensible ones anyway) it is only in this country the cyclist is seen a a national hate figure, nearly every other country I have been to makes much better provisions for cyclists and as such more people use it as a means of transport instead of just messing around on bikes, this country is so backwards when it comes to affordable, integrated transport of all kinds, this is why the car is the clear choice for most people and until that changes I sadly cannot see anything will change!.
As a sensible cyclist who obeys all of the laws of the road I get really annoyed with idiot cyclists who don't. I also wear a cycle helmet, hi-vis clothing, and have enough lights to light up a small village and yet some motorists still don't see me (or pretend not to see me), the thing is it's all about tolerance and a bit of give and take, for example cyclists are in certain circumstances allowed to cycle on the pavement however they must do so in a considerate manner, also how many motorists know that by law cyclists can ride two abreast? not many I guess by the amount of times I get hooted at whilst I'm out with my wife (once even by a police car, the officers were extremely embarrassed when I told THEM the law and they checked it with their C.I. only to find I was right). It's about time a)some cyclists started to behave in the correct manner and show some responsibility b)people showed a bit more tolerance towards cyclists (the sensible ones anyway) it is only in this country the cyclist is seen a a national hate figure, nearly every other country I have been to makes much better provisions for cyclists and as such more people use it as a means of transport instead of just messing around on bikes, this country is so backwards when it comes to affordable, integrated transport of all kinds, this is why the car is the clear choice for most people and until that changes I sadly cannot see anything will change!. Harry Callahan
  • Score: 0

9:24am Thu 6 Aug 09

Osama bin there says...

Harry Callahan wrote:
As a sensible cyclist who obeys all of the laws of the road I get really annoyed with idiot cyclists who don't. I also wear a cycle helmet, hi-vis clothing, and have enough lights to light up a small village and yet some motorists still don't see me (or pretend not to see me), the thing is it's all about tolerance and a bit of give and take, for example cyclists are in certain circumstances allowed to cycle on the pavement however they must do so in a considerate manner, also how many motorists know that by law cyclists can ride two abreast? not many I guess by the amount of times I get hooted at whilst I'm out with my wife (once even by a police car, the officers were extremely embarrassed when I told THEM the law and they checked it with their C.I. only to find I was right). It's about time a)some cyclists started to behave in the correct manner and show some responsibility b)people showed a bit more tolerance towards cyclists (the sensible ones anyway) it is only in this country the cyclist is seen a a national hate figure, nearly every other country I have been to makes much better provisions for cyclists and as such more people use it as a means of transport instead of just messing around on bikes, this country is so backwards when it comes to affordable, integrated transport of all kinds, this is why the car is the clear choice for most people and until that changes I sadly cannot see anything will change!.
Totally agree with everything you say.
I go to France regularly, and cyclists are treated with the utmost respect by other road users.
But.... I have never seen a cyclist in France break any of the normal rules of the road.
Maybe that's the lesson to be learnt.
[quote][p][bold]Harry Callahan[/bold] wrote: As a sensible cyclist who obeys all of the laws of the road I get really annoyed with idiot cyclists who don't. I also wear a cycle helmet, hi-vis clothing, and have enough lights to light up a small village and yet some motorists still don't see me (or pretend not to see me), the thing is it's all about tolerance and a bit of give and take, for example cyclists are in certain circumstances allowed to cycle on the pavement however they must do so in a considerate manner, also how many motorists know that by law cyclists can ride two abreast? not many I guess by the amount of times I get hooted at whilst I'm out with my wife (once even by a police car, the officers were extremely embarrassed when I told THEM the law and they checked it with their C.I. only to find I was right). It's about time a)some cyclists started to behave in the correct manner and show some responsibility b)people showed a bit more tolerance towards cyclists (the sensible ones anyway) it is only in this country the cyclist is seen a a national hate figure, nearly every other country I have been to makes much better provisions for cyclists and as such more people use it as a means of transport instead of just messing around on bikes, this country is so backwards when it comes to affordable, integrated transport of all kinds, this is why the car is the clear choice for most people and until that changes I sadly cannot see anything will change!.[/p][/quote]Totally agree with everything you say. I go to France regularly, and cyclists are treated with the utmost respect by other road users. But.... I have never seen a cyclist in France break any of the normal rules of the road. Maybe that's the lesson to be learnt. Osama bin there
  • Score: 0

9:25am Thu 6 Aug 09

Variable says...

Put a PCSO at the bottom of Trafalgar Street with a big bucket for all the £30s and watch the money flood in.
Put a PCSO at the bottom of Trafalgar Street with a big bucket for all the £30s and watch the money flood in. Variable
  • Score: 0

9:45am Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

There you have it.

Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No.

A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown.

Sussex Police are a total joke.
There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke. bibble
  • Score: 0

9:53am Thu 6 Aug 09

kkj says...

bibble wrote:
There you have it.

Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No.

A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown.

Sussex Police are a total joke.
Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably.

I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything. kkj
  • Score: 0

10:00am Thu 6 Aug 09

CliveA says...

It seems we're all agreed that law-breaking like this needs to be recognised and punished in some way. Fair enough.

But why is St. James Street such a notorious location for cyclists going against the flow?

What are the legal alternatives for cyclists heading westwards through that part of Kemptown?

Edward Street and Marine Parade. Both multi-lane roads, rife with speeding inattentive cars. Both roads with very nasty junctions at their western ends.

Bearing in mind the inhospitable nature of both these roads, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that some people, when riding bikes, feel they can take the 'short-cut' of St. James Street?

Of course, (before anyone accuses me otherwise) this is in no way an excuse for illegal riding, but maybe if we understand *why* people are breaking the law we can more constructively do something about it.

How about a 'Police clampdown on drivers'?
It seems we're all agreed that law-breaking like this needs to be recognised and punished in some way. Fair enough. But why is St. James Street such a notorious location for cyclists going against the flow? What are the legal alternatives for cyclists heading westwards through that part of Kemptown? Edward Street and Marine Parade. Both multi-lane roads, rife with speeding inattentive cars. Both roads with very nasty junctions at their western ends. Bearing in mind the inhospitable nature of both these roads, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that some people, when riding bikes, feel they can take the 'short-cut' of St. James Street? Of course, (before anyone accuses me otherwise) this is in no way an excuse for illegal riding, but maybe if we understand *why* people are breaking the law we can more constructively do something about it. How about a 'Police clampdown on drivers'? CliveA
  • Score: 0

10:00am Thu 6 Aug 09

Barney123 says...

Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them.

But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use.

Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use. Barney123
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.
You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime.

With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.
[quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.[/p][/quote]You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable. bibble
  • Score: 0

10:06am Thu 6 Aug 09

Robert Mugabe says...

bibble wrote:
There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
What is it with you and Sussex Police bibble. I am starting to find it a little perverse.
What has happened in your sad little life to make you hate them so much.
Did you get told of as a child for scrumping or something. There must be a reason why you keep posting on here.
Do tell
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]What is it with you and Sussex Police bibble. I am starting to find it a little perverse. What has happened in your sad little life to make you hate them so much. Did you get told of as a child for scrumping or something. There must be a reason why you keep posting on here. Do tell Robert Mugabe
  • Score: 0

10:23am Thu 6 Aug 09

kkj says...

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.
You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime.

With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.
I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post.

The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day.

See, easy.

When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'.
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.[/p][/quote]You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.[/p][/quote]I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post. The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day. See, easy. When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'. kkj
  • Score: 0

10:26am Thu 6 Aug 09

kkj says...

Delete 'Spring', insert 'Ship'
Delete 'Spring', insert 'Ship' kkj
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 6 Aug 09

Luke72 says...

As a cyclist I'd much prefer the police to target dangerous and reckless car driving than "dangerous" bike riding. The number of idiot car drivers that jump red lights or drive way too fast for the road they are on is amazing. However everytime there is a story about cyclists the same old "cyclists jump red lights" comments come out; well guess what? So do car drivers!
As a cyclist I'd much prefer the police to target dangerous and reckless car driving than "dangerous" bike riding. The number of idiot car drivers that jump red lights or drive way too fast for the road they are on is amazing. However everytime there is a story about cyclists the same old "cyclists jump red lights" comments come out; well guess what? So do car drivers! Luke72
  • Score: 0

10:38am Thu 6 Aug 09

Luke72 says...

How about Sussex police stand at the bottom of Dyke Road and nab all the car drivers trying to go passed the Clock Tower? Whilst waiting for a bus there the other day there was a huge number of cars passing in what is a bus/taxi only stretch of road.
How about Sussex police stand at the bottom of Dyke Road and nab all the car drivers trying to go passed the Clock Tower? Whilst waiting for a bus there the other day there was a huge number of cars passing in what is a bus/taxi only stretch of road. Luke72
  • Score: 0

10:43am Thu 6 Aug 09

Fozzyboy says...

Chop their legs off!! Simple as that!!
Chop their legs off!! Simple as that!! Fozzyboy
  • Score: 0

10:46am Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.
You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.
I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post. The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day. See, easy. When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'.
Did I say that? No.

So using your own words, I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion from my post.

The police made a big hullabaloo about stopping some speeding motorcyclists. Now we have a hullabaloo about cyclists.

How about a hullabaloo about violent crime? Or is that too hard for the police to deal with?
[quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.[/p][/quote]You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.[/p][/quote]I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post. The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day. See, easy. When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'.[/p][/quote]Did I say that? No. So using your own words, I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion from my post. The police made a big hullabaloo about stopping some speeding motorcyclists. Now we have a hullabaloo about cyclists. How about a hullabaloo about violent crime? Or is that too hard for the police to deal with? bibble
  • Score: 0

10:49am Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Robert Mugabe wrote:
bibble wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
What is it with you and Sussex Police bibble. I am starting to find it a little perverse. What has happened in your sad little life to make you hate them so much. Did you get told of as a child for scrumping or something. There must be a reason why you keep posting on here. Do tell
Instead of asking "what is it with me and Sussex Police", you might ask "what is it with Sussex Police".

They are seemingly incapable of stopping violent crime and drunken yobbery. But when it comes to stopping some cyclists, the softest of soft crime, they make a big splash.

Answer this: would you prefer Sussex Police to target violent crime or road traffic offences? It should be obvious which is the more serious.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Mugabe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]What is it with you and Sussex Police bibble. I am starting to find it a little perverse. What has happened in your sad little life to make you hate them so much. Did you get told of as a child for scrumping or something. There must be a reason why you keep posting on here. Do tell[/p][/quote]Instead of asking "what is it with me and Sussex Police", you might ask "what is it with Sussex Police". They are seemingly incapable of stopping violent crime and drunken yobbery. But when it comes to stopping some cyclists, the softest of soft crime, they make a big splash. Answer this: would you prefer Sussex Police to target violent crime or road traffic offences? It should be obvious which is the more serious. bibble
  • Score: 0

10:59am Thu 6 Aug 09

longman says...

How about a crack down on the mis-use of indicators at roundabouts? I have lost count of the number of cars that indicate to turn off and then continue onto the next exit. It is impossible to work out what they are doing as they also take the line in the road to turn off. The only drivers that do not make this mistake are the learners!
How about a crack down on the mis-use of indicators at roundabouts? I have lost count of the number of cars that indicate to turn off and then continue onto the next exit. It is impossible to work out what they are doing as they also take the line in the road to turn off. The only drivers that do not make this mistake are the learners! longman
  • Score: 0

11:02am Thu 6 Aug 09

Redbeard says...

Can we have more cycle lanes in the city then, it would be easier to get around if we did. I don't always adhere to the law, if there is no danger I run red lights and cycle on the pavement. As a car driver and cyclist and pedestrian I feel for each side but never put any one in danger either way. I know a lot of you are now going to moan and slag me off but that's your problem, gotta have some fun in life hey...
Can we have more cycle lanes in the city then, it would be easier to get around if we did. I don't always adhere to the law, if there is no danger I run red lights and cycle on the pavement. As a car driver and cyclist and pedestrian I feel for each side but never put any one in danger either way. I know a lot of you are now going to moan and slag me off but that's your problem, gotta have some fun in life hey... Redbeard
  • Score: 0

11:09am Thu 6 Aug 09

censored says...

I do occasionally ride the wrong way down short stretches (e.g. the bottom of Trafalgar Street). If I'm riding down from the station, it would be insane to have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road. It'd add a good 20 minutes and be far more dangerous because of the much larger volumes of traffic.

Likewise when cycling through the North Laine.

If I break the rules, I do so at a very slow speed, mindful that I'm in the wrong, giving both pedestrians and cars full right of way. If there are a lot of people or cars, I get off and push.

I certainly wouldn't go the length of St James Street. But why not nip across one small section, carefully, rather than doing a quarter mile detour in a one-way system?
I do occasionally ride the wrong way down short stretches (e.g. the bottom of Trafalgar Street). If I'm riding down from the station, it would be insane to have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road. It'd add a good 20 minutes and be far more dangerous because of the much larger volumes of traffic. Likewise when cycling through the North Laine. If I break the rules, I do so at a very slow speed, mindful that I'm in the wrong, giving both pedestrians and cars full right of way. If there are a lot of people or cars, I get off and push. I certainly wouldn't go the length of St James Street. But why not nip across one small section, carefully, rather than doing a quarter mile detour in a one-way system? censored
  • Score: 0

11:31am Thu 6 Aug 09

stan bailey says...

Often at Preston Circus cyclists are coming at you from all directions. They are oblivious to the cycle lanes. They go through red lights, ride on the pavement. It is like standing in a nightmare
Often at Preston Circus cyclists are coming at you from all directions. They are oblivious to the cycle lanes. They go through red lights, ride on the pavement. It is like standing in a nightmare stan bailey
  • Score: 0

11:37am Thu 6 Aug 09

Think about it says...

I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets.
I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets. Think about it
  • Score: 0

11:40am Thu 6 Aug 09

puddingandpi says...

Barney123 wrote:
Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them.

But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use.

As a horse keeper, I have passed my MOT Riding & Road Safety test & the rules are that you should ride 2 abreast unless obviously impractical.
This is because 2 abreast is the same width as a car & traffic has to slow down to pass. At least, that's the idea. It's not always the case!
But, there is no excuse for not following the cycle routes & roads.
As for Censored, why should car drivers "have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road"?
Because that's the way the road goes.
I shout at cyclists on the pavement - yes, people, it's me - & I'll carry on doing that as long as I have to defend my right to walk on the pavement in safety.
[quote][p][bold]Barney123[/bold] wrote: Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use. [/p][/quote]As a horse keeper, I have passed my MOT Riding & Road Safety test & the rules are that you should ride 2 abreast unless obviously impractical. This is because 2 abreast is the same width as a car & traffic has to slow down to pass. At least, that's the idea. It's not always the case! But, there is no excuse for not following the cycle routes & roads. As for Censored, why should car drivers "have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road"? Because that's the way the road goes. I shout at cyclists on the pavement - yes, people, it's me - & I'll carry on doing that as long as I have to defend my right to walk on the pavement in safety. puddingandpi
  • Score: 0

11:45am Thu 6 Aug 09

salty_pete says...

Maybe it's time for everybody to have another look at this site : http://www.weirdcycl
elanes.co.uk/
Maybe it's time for everybody to have another look at this site : http://www.weirdcycl elanes.co.uk/ salty_pete
  • Score: 0

11:48am Thu 6 Aug 09

SteveHove says...

CliveA wrote:
It seems we're all agreed that law-breaking like this needs to be recognised and punished in some way. Fair enough. But why is St. James Street such a notorious location for cyclists going against the flow? What are the legal alternatives for cyclists heading westwards through that part of Kemptown? Edward Street and Marine Parade. Both multi-lane roads, rife with speeding inattentive cars. Both roads with very nasty junctions at their western ends. Bearing in mind the inhospitable nature of both these roads, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that some people, when riding bikes, feel they can take the 'short-cut' of St. James Street? Of course, (before anyone accuses me otherwise) this is in no way an excuse for illegal riding, but maybe if we understand *why* people are breaking the law we can more constructively do something about it. How about a 'Police clampdown on drivers'?
Legal alternative.... I got a novel idea why not use the CYCLE PATH on the seafront!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]CliveA[/bold] wrote: It seems we're all agreed that law-breaking like this needs to be recognised and punished in some way. Fair enough. But why is St. James Street such a notorious location for cyclists going against the flow? What are the legal alternatives for cyclists heading westwards through that part of Kemptown? Edward Street and Marine Parade. Both multi-lane roads, rife with speeding inattentive cars. Both roads with very nasty junctions at their western ends. Bearing in mind the inhospitable nature of both these roads, maybe we shouldn't be surprised that some people, when riding bikes, feel they can take the 'short-cut' of St. James Street? Of course, (before anyone accuses me otherwise) this is in no way an excuse for illegal riding, but maybe if we understand *why* people are breaking the law we can more constructively do something about it. How about a 'Police clampdown on drivers'?[/p][/quote]Legal alternative.... I got a novel idea why not use the CYCLE PATH on the seafront!!!!! SteveHove
  • Score: 0

11:59am Thu 6 Aug 09

SteveHove says...

Think about it wrote:
I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets.
We all find it pointless stopping at red light when there is nothing going the other way but IT IS THE LAW and it keeps the flow of all traffic safer so we should all follow it otherwise why have the lights at all. We would have chaos if all car drivers just picked and choose which laws they wanted to obey.lights at all
[quote][p][bold]Think about it[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets.[/p][/quote]We all find it pointless stopping at red light when there is nothing going the other way but IT IS THE LAW and it keeps the flow of all traffic safer so we should all follow it otherwise why have the lights at all. We would have chaos if all car drivers just picked and choose which laws they wanted to obey.lights at all SteveHove
  • Score: 0

12:02pm Thu 6 Aug 09

SteveHove says...

puddingandpi wrote:
Barney123 wrote: Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use.
As a horse keeper, I have passed my MOT Riding & Road Safety test & the rules are that you should ride 2 abreast unless obviously impractical. This is because 2 abreast is the same width as a car & traffic has to slow down to pass. At least, that's the idea. It's not always the case! But, there is no excuse for not following the cycle routes & roads. As for Censored, why should car drivers "have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road"? Because that's the way the road goes. I shout at cyclists on the pavement - yes, people, it's me - & I'll carry on doing that as long as I have to defend my right to walk on the pavement in safety.
I agree Puddinggandp.... If that is the way the road goes that the way the traffic should go be it car bike or horse
[quote][p][bold]puddingandpi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Barney123[/bold] wrote: Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use. [/p][/quote]As a horse keeper, I have passed my MOT Riding & Road Safety test & the rules are that you should ride 2 abreast unless obviously impractical. This is because 2 abreast is the same width as a car & traffic has to slow down to pass. At least, that's the idea. It's not always the case! But, there is no excuse for not following the cycle routes & roads. As for Censored, why should car drivers "have to turn left and go up through the New England quarter, onto Preston Circus and back down Ditchling Road"? Because that's the way the road goes. I shout at cyclists on the pavement - yes, people, it's me - & I'll carry on doing that as long as I have to defend my right to walk on the pavement in safety.[/p][/quote]I agree Puddinggandp.... If that is the way the road goes that the way the traffic should go be it car bike or horse SteveHove
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Think about it says...

SteveHove wrote:
Think about it wrote: I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets.
We all find it pointless stopping at red light when there is nothing going the other way but IT IS THE LAW and it keeps the flow of all traffic safer so we should all follow it otherwise why have the lights at all. We would have chaos if all car drivers just picked and choose which laws they wanted to obey.lights at all
What do you think will happen if cyclists start getting prosecuted for going through empty pedestrian crossings on red? They'll start demanding pedestrians get prosecuted for crossing on red as well because it's the law and "why should pedestrians be able to pick and choose which lights to obey?"

Sometimes the law is too inflexible so we should change it.

And as for saying car drivers don't pick and choose the laws they want to obey you are having a laugh! You've never seen a driver doing over 30mph, on his mobile phone, or running a red light?
[quote][p][bold]SteveHove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Think about it[/bold] wrote: I'd like to see the law changed to allow cyclists to treat red lights as Give Way signs, always having to give priority to other trafffic and of course pedestrians, but able to proceed if the way is clear. I am not sticking up for those people who ride like idiots but imagine walking along the pavement and being forced to stop every hundred yards or so and wait, pointlessly, for 45 seconds before being allowed to walk a few more yards then having to stop again. That's what it's like on a bike in city centres. When you've stopped for the umpteenth pointless red light it is very tempting to go though an empty pedestrian crossing on red. If the rules reflected the reality of cycling in towns, we could properly crack down on really dangerous cycling, which in my book definitely includes cycling the wrong way down one way streets.[/p][/quote]We all find it pointless stopping at red light when there is nothing going the other way but IT IS THE LAW and it keeps the flow of all traffic safer so we should all follow it otherwise why have the lights at all. We would have chaos if all car drivers just picked and choose which laws they wanted to obey.lights at all[/p][/quote]What do you think will happen if cyclists start getting prosecuted for going through empty pedestrian crossings on red? They'll start demanding pedestrians get prosecuted for crossing on red as well because it's the law and "why should pedestrians be able to pick and choose which lights to obey?" Sometimes the law is too inflexible so we should change it. And as for saying car drivers don't pick and choose the laws they want to obey you are having a laugh! You've never seen a driver doing over 30mph, on his mobile phone, or running a red light? Think about it
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 6 Aug 09

chris elmes says...

There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca
uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW.
There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW. chris elmes
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 6 Aug 09

CliveA says...

SteveHove: "Legal alternative.... I got a novel idea why not use the CYCLE PATH on the seafront!!!!!"

Steve - Are you suggesting that someone at, say, Lower Rock Gardens, should ride down to Marine Parade, cross four lanes of traffic, find the steps that lead down to Madiera Drive, carry their bike down four flights of steps, cross Madiera Drive, ride along the cycle lane, rejoin the road at the Palace Pier, negotiate the notoriously dangerous roundabout, join the multi-lane one-way system that then leads most of the way up the Steine before turning round and returning south to the west end of St. James Street?

You've just nicely illustrated my point that, faced with helpful suggestions like that, it's no wonder that some people feel tempted to break the rules.

Just beacuse there is a cycle lane within half a mile, we shouldn't imagine that it will be useful for any and all cyclists in the area.

Again, I'll state that I'm not trying to excuse rule-breakers, just to understand why they do what they do.
SteveHove: "Legal alternative.... I got a novel idea why not use the CYCLE PATH on the seafront!!!!!" Steve - Are you suggesting that someone at, say, Lower Rock Gardens, should ride down to Marine Parade, cross four lanes of traffic, find the steps that lead down to Madiera Drive, carry their bike down four flights of steps, cross Madiera Drive, ride along the cycle lane, rejoin the road at the Palace Pier, negotiate the notoriously dangerous roundabout, join the multi-lane one-way system that then leads most of the way up the Steine before turning round and returning south to the west end of St. James Street? You've just nicely illustrated my point that, faced with helpful suggestions like that, it's no wonder that some people feel tempted to break the rules. Just beacuse there is a cycle lane within half a mile, we shouldn't imagine that it will be useful for any and all cyclists in the area. Again, I'll state that I'm not trying to excuse rule-breakers, just to understand why they do what they do. CliveA
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

chris elmes wrote:
There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW.
Ah yes. All the superfluous things that constitute "traffic management" which only slows down traffic.

Who has not been in a traffic queue with an adjacent empty bus lane? Then a bus passes with 5 people on board.

All the traffic measures cost lots of money, and the councillors know how to spend it. The fact that it doesn't work is immaterial to them.
[quote][p][bold]chris elmes[/bold] wrote: There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW.[/p][/quote]Ah yes. All the superfluous things that constitute "traffic management" which only slows down traffic. Who has not been in a traffic queue with an adjacent empty bus lane? Then a bus passes with 5 people on board. All the traffic measures cost lots of money, and the councillors know how to spend it. The fact that it doesn't work is immaterial to them. bibble
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Thu 6 Aug 09

2Tubs says...

I'm a cyclist and agree with all you motorists that dangerous cycling should be addressed by the law.

Slap 'em with a fine. I quite agree.

I'm so pleased that you're all concerned with safety.

Speaking of which, cyclists are involved in fault accidents that result in death 0 - 4 times a year. This is in spite of all these "dangerous" cyclists ignoring no entry signs.

Motorists on the other hand, around 3000. Pretty much all of which could be avoided if the driver paid attention and obeyed the law.

This includes pedestrians killed on the pavements of which one is caused by a cyclist every two years, on average, compared to around 50 - 80 a year by motorists.

So if you'll all stop speeding, using mobiles/eating/smoki
ng/reading maps while driving, driving on the pavements and running red lights that would be good start.

Let's not forget the good number of motorists that ignore no entry signs.

And perhaps you could give us law abiding cyclists more than a nano meter of room?

After all, I doubt very much that you'd be a hypocrite, eh?

Gazza
I'm a cyclist and agree with all you motorists that dangerous cycling should be addressed by the law. Slap 'em with a fine. I quite agree. I'm so pleased that you're all concerned with safety. Speaking of which, cyclists are involved in fault accidents that result in death 0 - 4 times a year. This is in spite of all these "dangerous" cyclists ignoring no entry signs. Motorists on the other hand, around 3000. Pretty much all of which could be avoided if the driver paid attention and obeyed the law. This includes pedestrians killed on the pavements of which one is caused by a cyclist every two years, on average, compared to around 50 - 80 a year by motorists. So if you'll all stop speeding, using mobiles/eating/smoki ng/reading maps while driving, driving on the pavements and running red lights that would be good start. Let's not forget the good number of motorists that ignore no entry signs. And perhaps you could give us law abiding cyclists more than a nano meter of room? After all, I doubt very much that you'd be a hypocrite, eh? Gazza 2Tubs
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Stu says...

Well done Sussex Police! About time something was done about this. I had a near miss with a cyclist going the wrong way down St Janes St only last week.
Well done Sussex Police! About time something was done about this. I had a near miss with a cyclist going the wrong way down St Janes St only last week. Stu
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Thu 6 Aug 09

zumo says...

All for it!! Make it £60 and seize the bike for a month. I'm a regular cyclist and I estimate that 70% of cyclists flout the law. Absolute numskulls.
All for it!! Make it £60 and seize the bike for a month. I'm a regular cyclist and I estimate that 70% of cyclists flout the law. Absolute numskulls. zumo
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

As an experienced motorcycle rider, I am well aware of how vulnerable bikers and cyclists are compared to other road users. The failure of car/taxi/bus drivers to drive responsibly simply reinforces the need for cyclists to ride cautiously and defensively to avoid ending up in hospital. There is no excuse for any rider or driver to break the law and there are NO circumstances where it is legal to ride on the pavement. Nobody is "forced" to ride on the pavement - if you lack the skill and confidence to ride on busy roads....well... you should not ride when the roads are busy - very simple! Dribble's arguments that the police should not tackle this "low level" criminal activity are as hollow as saying that the police should not pursue acts of graffiti or vandalism as their time would be better spent fighting more violent crime. Anti-social cycling such as riding on pavements, without lights at night, the wrong way on one way streets and through red lights are all punishable offences. The Highway Code confirms the maximum penalties for these offences: Cycling on the pavement - £500 fine, Careless cycling - £1000 fine, Dangerous cycling - £2500 fine.

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_069870

The police are hardly "cracking down" on anti-social cyclists by issuing £30 fines or questionnaires - they are responding to the concerns of the local people who are fed up with cyclists flouting the law. I agree that the worst offenders should be prosecuted and have their bikes confiscated.

Cyclists who believe it is "safe" to ride on the pavement, go through red lights etc because they believe they have the skills to avoid accidents should consider the example they are setting to younger and less experienced cyclists who will believe this is ok because "everybody does it".

Anti-social cyclists are either:-

(a) Arrogant
(b) Suicidal
or (c) Both

Perhaps if more cyclists demonstrated their respect for the Highway Code, they would get more respect from other road users.
As an experienced motorcycle rider, I am well aware of how vulnerable bikers and cyclists are compared to other road users. The failure of car/taxi/bus drivers to drive responsibly simply reinforces the need for cyclists to ride cautiously and defensively to avoid ending up in hospital. There is no excuse for any rider or driver to break the law and there are NO circumstances where it is legal to ride on the pavement. Nobody is "forced" to ride on the pavement - if you lack the skill and confidence to ride on busy roads....well... you should not ride when the roads are busy - very simple! Dribble's arguments that the police should not tackle this "low level" criminal activity are as hollow as saying that the police should not pursue acts of graffiti or vandalism as their time would be better spent fighting more violent crime. Anti-social cycling such as riding on pavements, without lights at night, the wrong way on one way streets and through red lights are all punishable offences. The Highway Code confirms the maximum penalties for these offences: Cycling on the pavement - £500 fine, Careless cycling - £1000 fine, Dangerous cycling - £2500 fine. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069870 The police are hardly "cracking down" on anti-social cyclists by issuing £30 fines or questionnaires - they are responding to the concerns of the local people who are fed up with cyclists flouting the law. I agree that the worst offenders should be prosecuted and have their bikes confiscated. Cyclists who believe it is "safe" to ride on the pavement, go through red lights etc because they believe they have the skills to avoid accidents should consider the example they are setting to younger and less experienced cyclists who will believe this is ok because "everybody does it". Anti-social cyclists are either:- (a) Arrogant (b) Suicidal or (c) Both Perhaps if more cyclists demonstrated their respect for the Highway Code, they would get more respect from other road users. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Granny says...

Has bibble had a bad experience with Sussex Police or just Sussex as a whole? It gets a bit boring to continually read blurbs from someone who only visits regularly, or am I the only one who thinks that? Aside from that, it is about time something was done about the way cyclists continue to think that the laws of the road do not apply to them. Perhaps they can soon be made aware that a red light at traffic junctions means STOP. Perhaps bibble would like to come here and help the police out. On the other hand, perhaps that is not such a good idea.
Has bibble had a bad experience with Sussex Police or just Sussex as a whole? It gets a bit boring to continually read blurbs from someone who only visits regularly, or am I the only one who thinks that? Aside from that, it is about time something was done about the way cyclists continue to think that the laws of the road do not apply to them. Perhaps they can soon be made aware that a red light at traffic junctions means STOP. Perhaps bibble would like to come here and help the police out. On the other hand, perhaps that is not such a good idea. Granny
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Thu 6 Aug 09

CliveA says...

Motorcyclist - I am largely in agreement with you, but would like to point out that there are instances of 'shared paths' beside roads where pavements are shared between cyclists and pedestrians. This is indicated by a blue sign showing a pedestrian and a bike above/beneath each other. If I remember correctly, short sections of the Steine cycle route use this kind of path.

So, yes, in most cases, pavement cycling is illegal, but one should not assume that this is always the case as these blue signs are often invisible from the road.

Similarly, if you see a bike crossing from pavement to pavement on a 'toucan' crossing, as is often the case in Brighton, this is perfectly legitimate, despite not being obviously so from the road user's point of view.

And 2Tubs - You make very good points. Good stuff.
Motorcyclist - I am largely in agreement with you, but would like to point out that there are instances of 'shared paths' beside roads where pavements are shared between cyclists and pedestrians. This is indicated by a blue sign showing a pedestrian and a bike above/beneath each other. If I remember correctly, short sections of the Steine cycle route use this kind of path. So, yes, in most cases, pavement cycling is illegal, but one should not assume that this is always the case as these blue signs are often invisible from the road. Similarly, if you see a bike crossing from pavement to pavement on a 'toucan' crossing, as is often the case in Brighton, this is perfectly legitimate, despite not being obviously so from the road user's point of view. And 2Tubs - You make very good points. Good stuff. CliveA
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Thu 6 Aug 09

2Tubs says...

Interesting points motorcyclist. And for the most part I agree.

But I feel you’re excusing dangerous and anti social driving with this quote



I’m not an anti social cyclist. In my spare time I’m a cycle instructor for the NHS teaching to bikeability (the government’s cycling strategy) standards.

But because a few cyclists, cycle on the pavements (to quote you) then it’s quite acceptable for other road users to not give me the respect I deserve?

No, it’s not matter of which vehicle you use, it’s the operator that is the question. Personally, I wish all the idiots rode cycles. Restrict the idiots to cycles and there’d be a lot less death on the roads.

You also ignore the fact that all road users ignore the highway code or how else would motorists be responsible for 50 to 80 pedestrian deaths on the pavement each year. Jus look at the room most motorists give cyclists, it’s no where near the 5 feet suggested by the highway code. Let’s be honest, most road users are clueless to what’s even in the highway code and many that do (including all those motorists and motorcyclists) just couldn’t care less.

Gazza
Interesting points motorcyclist. And for the most part I agree. But I feel you’re excusing dangerous and anti social driving with this quote [motorcyclist wrote: Perhaps if more cyclists demonstrated their respect for the Highway Code, they would get more respect from other road users.] I’m not an anti social cyclist. In my spare time I’m a cycle instructor for the NHS teaching to bikeability (the government’s cycling strategy) standards. But because a few cyclists, cycle on the pavements (to quote you) then it’s quite acceptable for other road users to not give me the respect I deserve? No, it’s not matter of which vehicle you use, it’s the operator that is the question. Personally, I wish all the idiots rode cycles. Restrict the idiots to cycles and there’d be a lot less death on the roads. You also ignore the fact that all road users ignore the highway code or how else would motorists be responsible for 50 to 80 pedestrian deaths on the pavement each year. Jus look at the room most motorists give cyclists, it’s no where near the 5 feet suggested by the highway code. Let’s be honest, most road users are clueless to what’s even in the highway code and many that do (including all those motorists and motorcyclists) just couldn’t care less. Gazza 2Tubs
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
As an experienced motorcycle rider, I am well aware of how vulnerable bikers and cyclists are compared to other road users. The failure of car/taxi/bus drivers to drive responsibly simply reinforces the need for cyclists to ride cautiously and defensively to avoid ending up in hospital. There is no excuse for any rider or driver to break the law and there are NO circumstances where it is legal to ride on the pavement. Nobody is "forced" to ride on the pavement - if you lack the skill and confidence to ride on busy roads....well... you should not ride when the roads are busy - very simple! Dribble's arguments that the police should not tackle this "low level" criminal activity are as hollow as saying that the police should not pursue acts of graffiti or vandalism as their time would be better spent fighting more violent crime. Anti-social cycling such as riding on pavements, without lights at night, the wrong way on one way streets and through red lights are all punishable offences. The Highway Code confirms the maximum penalties for these offences: Cycling on the pavement - £500 fine, Careless cycling - £1000 fine, Dangerous cycling - £2500 fine. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069870 The police are hardly "cracking down" on anti-social cyclists by issuing £30 fines or questionnaires - they are responding to the concerns of the local people who are fed up with cyclists flouting the law. I agree that the worst offenders should be prosecuted and have their bikes confiscated. Cyclists who believe it is "safe" to ride on the pavement, go through red lights etc because they believe they have the skills to avoid accidents should consider the example they are setting to younger and less experienced cyclists who will believe this is ok because "everybody does it". Anti-social cyclists are either:- (a) Arrogant (b) Suicidal or (c) Both Perhaps if more cyclists demonstrated their respect for the Highway Code, they would get more respect from other road users.
Well, Motorcyclist, I too am an experienced motorcyclist. So don't think your "experience" gives you more to say than anyone else.

You are another of these people who think that some illegal cycling is on a par with violent crime, or that is what you infer. Yesterday it was reported that the residents of a street said that violent crime happened all the time. But the police response was not to have a crackdown. Instead all they have offered is to support an application to fit a gate.

You, as a supposedly experienced motorcyclist, must know how dangerous riding is. Perhaps if the roads weren't quite so dangerous with blase bikers like yourself, then cyclists would feel safer on them. Not everyone who rides on the pavement is anti-social. It might be called "life preserving".

You need your eyes testing. My nick name is Bibble, not Dribble. If you can't see properly, don't ride on the public roads.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: As an experienced motorcycle rider, I am well aware of how vulnerable bikers and cyclists are compared to other road users. The failure of car/taxi/bus drivers to drive responsibly simply reinforces the need for cyclists to ride cautiously and defensively to avoid ending up in hospital. There is no excuse for any rider or driver to break the law and there are NO circumstances where it is legal to ride on the pavement. Nobody is "forced" to ride on the pavement - if you lack the skill and confidence to ride on busy roads....well... you should not ride when the roads are busy - very simple! Dribble's arguments that the police should not tackle this "low level" criminal activity are as hollow as saying that the police should not pursue acts of graffiti or vandalism as their time would be better spent fighting more violent crime. Anti-social cycling such as riding on pavements, without lights at night, the wrong way on one way streets and through red lights are all punishable offences. The Highway Code confirms the maximum penalties for these offences: Cycling on the pavement - £500 fine, Careless cycling - £1000 fine, Dangerous cycling - £2500 fine. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069870 The police are hardly "cracking down" on anti-social cyclists by issuing £30 fines or questionnaires - they are responding to the concerns of the local people who are fed up with cyclists flouting the law. I agree that the worst offenders should be prosecuted and have their bikes confiscated. Cyclists who believe it is "safe" to ride on the pavement, go through red lights etc because they believe they have the skills to avoid accidents should consider the example they are setting to younger and less experienced cyclists who will believe this is ok because "everybody does it". Anti-social cyclists are either:- (a) Arrogant (b) Suicidal or (c) Both Perhaps if more cyclists demonstrated their respect for the Highway Code, they would get more respect from other road users.[/p][/quote]Well, Motorcyclist, I too am an experienced motorcyclist. So don't think your "experience" gives you more to say than anyone else. You are another of these people who think that some illegal cycling is on a par with violent crime, or that is what you infer. Yesterday it was reported that the residents of a street said that violent crime happened all the time. But the police response was not to have a crackdown. Instead all they have offered is to support an application to fit a gate. You, as a supposedly experienced motorcyclist, must know how dangerous riding is. Perhaps if the roads weren't quite so dangerous with blase bikers like yourself, then cyclists would feel safer on them. Not everyone who rides on the pavement is anti-social. It might be called "life preserving". You need your eyes testing. My nick name is Bibble, not Dribble. If you can't see properly, don't ride on the public roads. bibble
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 6 Aug 09

2Tubs says...

Sorry, motorcyclist, the quote appears to be missing in my post.

The quote I refer to is the last line of your post asserting that cyclists don't deserve respect from other road users because we don't obey the law. Well sorry mate, I do.

Statistics show that motorcyclists are responsible for more deaths to cyclists than cars when compared on a mile per mile basis. Using the logic that I don't deserve respect from other users because other cyclists might go on the pavement would lead me to the conclusion that you're an anti social, dangerous speedophile. Of course, I don't just assume that, I in fact make the assumption that you're a safe considerate rider.

So I find it slightly objectional not to mention potentially lethal) that it's ok to deny me respect on the roads because another cyclist rode the wrong way up a one way street.

On the subject of pavement cycling, make the roads safe by driving and riding within the law, and cyclists have no need to be there, do they?

Sort the dangerous motorists out and the timid cyclists will be back on the roads. It's all very simple really.

Gazza
Sorry, motorcyclist, the quote appears to be missing in my post. The quote I refer to is the last line of your post asserting that cyclists don't deserve respect from other road users because we don't obey the law. Well sorry mate, I do. Statistics show that motorcyclists are responsible for more deaths to cyclists than cars when compared on a mile per mile basis. Using the logic that I don't deserve respect from other users because other cyclists might go on the pavement would lead me to the conclusion that you're an anti social, dangerous speedophile. Of course, I don't just assume that, I in fact make the assumption that you're a safe considerate rider. So I find it slightly objectional not to mention potentially lethal) that it's ok to deny me respect on the roads because another cyclist rode the wrong way up a one way street. On the subject of pavement cycling, make the roads safe by driving and riding within the law, and cyclists have no need to be there, do they? Sort the dangerous motorists out and the timid cyclists will be back on the roads. It's all very simple really. Gazza 2Tubs
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Thu 6 Aug 09

MzEden says...

I cover about 75 miles a week on my bike and I cannot stand cyclist who do not observe the rules of the road. As 'traffic' you must be following the same rules as everyone else or there will be accidents. I don't want to die so I am constantly on alert for the next person to do something stupid. People, in general, need to pay attention to what they, and others around them, are doing for the benefit of everyone.
All people breaking the law should be punished,if you're not doing anything wrong, it won't adversly effect you.
I cover about 75 miles a week on my bike and I cannot stand cyclist who do not observe the rules of the road. As 'traffic' you must be following the same rules as everyone else or there will be accidents. I don't want to die so I am constantly on alert for the next person to do something stupid. People, in general, need to pay attention to what they, and others around them, are doing for the benefit of everyone. All people breaking the law should be punished,if you're not doing anything wrong, it won't adversly effect you. MzEden
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

I would never excuse dangerous or anti-social driving - particularly when this puts any rider or cyclist at risk. It is not acceptable for any road user to fail to respect other road (or pavement) users. I totally agree that drivers are the main cause of accidents, as I see so many examples of bad driving locally every day. Cyclists should be encouraged to take instruction on defensive cycling techniques and, of course, ALL road users should learn and obey the Highway Code. I wear a crash helmet, armoured jacket and gloves when I ride. I also have the benefit of mirrors, a loud horn and an engine to help me avoid accidents - but I would still face serious injuries if I am involved in a collision. Cyclists and pedestrians are even more vulnerable and should never take risks with their safety. There will always be arrogant idiot drivers, riders, cyclists and pedestrians. That does not mean we should be apathetic and disregard the law whether we drive or ride.
I would never excuse dangerous or anti-social driving - particularly when this puts any rider or cyclist at risk. It is not acceptable for any road user to fail to respect other road (or pavement) users. I totally agree that drivers are the main cause of accidents, as I see so many examples of bad driving locally every day. Cyclists should be encouraged to take instruction on defensive cycling techniques and, of course, ALL road users should learn and obey the Highway Code. I wear a crash helmet, armoured jacket and gloves when I ride. I also have the benefit of mirrors, a loud horn and an engine to help me avoid accidents - but I would still face serious injuries if I am involved in a collision. Cyclists and pedestrians are even more vulnerable and should never take risks with their safety. There will always be arrogant idiot drivers, riders, cyclists and pedestrians. That does not mean we should be apathetic and disregard the law whether we drive or ride. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Variable says...

Luke72 wrote:
As a cyclist I'd much prefer the police to target dangerous and reckless car driving than "dangerous" bike riding. The number of idiot car drivers that jump red lights or drive way too fast for the road they are on is amazing. However everytime there is a story about cyclists the same old "cyclists jump red lights" comments come out; well guess what? So do car drivers!
As a motorist I can assure you that the police do target reckless and dangerous driving. Try spinning your wheels with a police car watching and see what happens. I agree that a clampdown on people driving in bus/taxi zones would provide a high-profile answer to the problem, but my understanding is that there's a CCTV scheme which dishes out fixed penalty notices in these areas. (At least, that's what it claims on the back of the buses).
[quote][p][bold]Luke72[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I'd much prefer the police to target dangerous and reckless car driving than "dangerous" bike riding. The number of idiot car drivers that jump red lights or drive way too fast for the road they are on is amazing. However everytime there is a story about cyclists the same old "cyclists jump red lights" comments come out; well guess what? So do car drivers! [/p][/quote]As a motorist I can assure you that the police do target reckless and dangerous driving. Try spinning your wheels with a police car watching and see what happens. I agree that a clampdown on people driving in bus/taxi zones would provide a high-profile answer to the problem, but my understanding is that there's a CCTV scheme which dishes out fixed penalty notices in these areas. (At least, that's what it claims on the back of the buses). Variable
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Thu 6 Aug 09

cing says...

I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary cing
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Stu says...

cing wrote:
I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.
[quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop. Stu
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Stu wrote:
cing wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.
The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close.

I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving.

I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous.

Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing.

Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.
[quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.[/p][/quote]The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close. I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving. I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous. Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing. Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner. bibble
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Stu wrote:
cing wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.
The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close.

I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving.

I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous.

Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing.

Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.
[quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.[/p][/quote]The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close. I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving. I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous. Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing. Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner. bibble
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
I would never excuse dangerous or anti-social driving - particularly when this puts any rider or cyclist at risk. It is not acceptable for any road user to fail to respect other road (or pavement) users. I totally agree that drivers are the main cause of accidents, as I see so many examples of bad driving locally every day. Cyclists should be encouraged to take instruction on defensive cycling techniques and, of course, ALL road users should learn and obey the Highway Code. I wear a crash helmet, armoured jacket and gloves when I ride. I also have the benefit of mirrors, a loud horn and an engine to help me avoid accidents - but I would still face serious injuries if I am involved in a collision. Cyclists and pedestrians are even more vulnerable and should never take risks with their safety. There will always be arrogant idiot drivers, riders, cyclists and pedestrians. That does not mean we should be apathetic and disregard the law whether we drive or ride.
I fully endorse defensive riding for motorcyclists, but for cyclists it is less practical.

When I ride (a motorcycle) in the middle of a lane I am (usually) occupying the best position. If a cyclist did that he would be hogging the road, holding up other traffic.

If, as you say, "drivers are the main cause of accidents" then there is only so much that cyclists can do to avoid that.

If it's a matter of staying alive and riding on the pavement I know which I would choose.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: I would never excuse dangerous or anti-social driving - particularly when this puts any rider or cyclist at risk. It is not acceptable for any road user to fail to respect other road (or pavement) users. I totally agree that drivers are the main cause of accidents, as I see so many examples of bad driving locally every day. Cyclists should be encouraged to take instruction on defensive cycling techniques and, of course, ALL road users should learn and obey the Highway Code. I wear a crash helmet, armoured jacket and gloves when I ride. I also have the benefit of mirrors, a loud horn and an engine to help me avoid accidents - but I would still face serious injuries if I am involved in a collision. Cyclists and pedestrians are even more vulnerable and should never take risks with their safety. There will always be arrogant idiot drivers, riders, cyclists and pedestrians. That does not mean we should be apathetic and disregard the law whether we drive or ride.[/p][/quote]I fully endorse defensive riding for motorcyclists, but for cyclists it is less practical. When I ride (a motorcycle) in the middle of a lane I am (usually) occupying the best position. If a cyclist did that he would be hogging the road, holding up other traffic. If, as you say, "drivers are the main cause of accidents" then there is only so much that cyclists can do to avoid that. If it's a matter of staying alive and riding on the pavement I know which I would choose. bibble
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 6 Aug 09

BiggerH says...

I walk, use car, bike and bus.

But it will always be the ignorant car driver that will be the menace and danger on teh roads

Going through red lights on a bike? SO what? Can't believe people who waste their breath going on about this, compared to the destruction to other people and the damage to the environment that car drivers bring to this world.



I walk, use car, bike and bus. But it will always be the ignorant car driver that will be the menace and danger on teh roads Going through red lights on a bike? SO what? Can't believe people who waste their breath going on about this, compared to the destruction to other people and the damage to the environment that car drivers bring to this world. BiggerH
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Thu 6 Aug 09

ooer says...

The most commented story on the Argus website. Pretty much sums it up.
The most commented story on the Argus website. Pretty much sums it up. ooer
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Thu 6 Aug 09

yorkie44 says...

The council is to blame for this. They encourage cycling but then do not make suitable provisions. St Jame's Street is bad but so is the Undercliff Walk where cycling is banned but cyclists ignore this. They now have a new cycle route on Madeira Drive but continue to cycle on the pavement on Marine Parade. The cycle route on Kings Road is just madness - anybody crossing the road walks straight into a cycle lane when they have a green light showing them that it is safety to cross. What other council could introduce such crazy schemes except Brighton - the worst council in England and Wales.
The council is to blame for this. They encourage cycling but then do not make suitable provisions. St Jame's Street is bad but so is the Undercliff Walk where cycling is banned but cyclists ignore this. They now have a new cycle route on Madeira Drive but continue to cycle on the pavement on Marine Parade. The cycle route on Kings Road is just madness - anybody crossing the road walks straight into a cycle lane when they have a green light showing them that it is safety to cross. What other council could introduce such crazy schemes except Brighton - the worst council in England and Wales. yorkie44
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Acheron says...

Bibble,

I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with?

Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime?

Thanks.
Bibble, I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with? Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime? Thanks. Acheron
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Thu 6 Aug 09

stan bailey says...

Acheron wrote:
Bibble,

I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with?

Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime?

Thanks.
dead right
[quote][p][bold]Acheron[/bold] wrote: Bibble, I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with? Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime? Thanks.[/p][/quote]dead right stan bailey
  • Score: 0

6:31pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

Acheron wrote:
Bibble, I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with? Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime? Thanks.
It is not wrong for both to be dealt with, but that is not what happens.

Take the subject raised yesterday. The residents in that street complained that violent crime happens all the time. That means it is not being dealt with.

Instead the police prefer to target soft crimes, because they are easy to catch and it makes their crime figures look better than they really are. Would you say that a burglary is more important than a cyclist on the pavement? But, as far as the statistics go, both are one solved "crime" or incident. There is a competition between the two because the police have limited resources.

I give almost no creedence at all to somebody "graduating" from cycling on the pavement to turning into a robber or burglar. Or that burglars and thugs seeing cyclists being given tickets will dissuade them. When you see a cyclist on the pavement, do you say to yourself "that's a burglar in the making"?

Let's say you were burgled. Would you prefer the police to properly investigate that, and maybe get your property back, or to give a ticket to somebody cycling on the pavement outside your house?
[quote][p][bold]Acheron[/bold] wrote: Bibble, I'm curious as to your description of soft crime. Can I ask at what point a crime isn't considered soft. You repeatedly talk about it being 'vs violent crime' and I'm not sure why it has to be a competition between the two. Why is it wrong for both to be dealt with? Do you not give any creedence to the possibility that preventing minor crime can discourage more major crime? Thanks.[/p][/quote]It is not wrong for both to be dealt with, but that is not what happens. Take the subject raised yesterday. The residents in that street complained that violent crime happens all the time. That means it is not being dealt with. Instead the police prefer to target soft crimes, because they are easy to catch and it makes their crime figures look better than they really are. Would you say that a burglary is more important than a cyclist on the pavement? But, as far as the statistics go, both are one solved "crime" or incident. There is a competition between the two because the police have limited resources. I give almost no creedence at all to somebody "graduating" from cycling on the pavement to turning into a robber or burglar. Or that burglars and thugs seeing cyclists being given tickets will dissuade them. When you see a cyclist on the pavement, do you say to yourself "that's a burglar in the making"? Let's say you were burgled. Would you prefer the police to properly investigate that, and maybe get your property back, or to give a ticket to somebody cycling on the pavement outside your house? bibble
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Thu 6 Aug 09

puddingandpi says...

cing wrote:
I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you need to go onto the pavement, for what you feel to be safety reasons,

GET OFF AND WALK

And as for "Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner,"

IT IS ILLEGAL

Not all burglars leave the house in a mess, but that means nothing!

Some rapists are quite polite & one or 2 have even apologised; do you understand?
[quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you need to go onto the pavement, for what you feel to be safety reasons, GET OFF AND WALK And as for "Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner," IT IS ILLEGAL Not all burglars leave the house in a mess, but that means nothing! Some rapists are quite polite & one or 2 have even apologised; do you understand? puddingandpi
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Thu 6 Aug 09

bibble says...

puddingandpi wrote:
cing wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you need to go onto the pavement, for what you feel to be safety reasons, GET OFF AND WALK And as for "Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner," IT IS ILLEGAL Not all burglars leave the house in a mess, but that means nothing! Some rapists are quite polite & one or 2 have even apologised; do you understand?
You are trying to equate cycling on the pavement with rape and burglary.

If you really can't see the difference, you need to get some spectacles.
[quote][p][bold]puddingandpi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you need to go onto the pavement, for what you feel to be safety reasons, GET OFF AND WALK And as for "Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner," IT IS ILLEGAL Not all burglars leave the house in a mess, but that means nothing! Some rapists are quite polite & one or 2 have even apologised; do you understand? [/p][/quote]You are trying to equate cycling on the pavement with rape and burglary. If you really can't see the difference, you need to get some spectacles. bibble
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Bog Vern says...

bibble wrote:
Stu wrote:
cing wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.
The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close.

I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving.

I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous.

Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing.

Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.
Bibble

When you're on your motorbike, battery powered no doubt, down the park has your mummy/daddy/guardian
/carer taken the stabilizers off yet ?
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.[/p][/quote]The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close. I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving. I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous. Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing. Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.[/p][/quote]Bibble When you're on your motorbike, battery powered no doubt, down the park has your mummy/daddy/guardian /carer taken the stabilizers off yet ? Bog Vern
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Thu 6 Aug 09

tarik says...

Back on the original subject, it seems what's needed here is a rethink of how cycle lanes are laid out. It is perfectly possible for there to be room for a two way cycle lane sometimes going against the traffic flow, as there would be in St James Street. And as a poster said earlier at the bottom of Trafalgar Street.

Remember, one way systems are laid out with 4-wheel vehicles, parked cars, etc in mind so I'm sure we can solve this specific problem very easily.

More generally, the assertion that only a "few" cyclists ride on the pavement is simply laughable. It's "most", and we all know that. Perfectly understandable on major busy fast roads, but so many cyclists seem to view cycling simply as a quicker way of walking. I'm afraid it's usually just plain ignorance and selfishness that's to blame.
Back on the original subject, it seems what's needed here is a rethink of how cycle lanes are laid out. It is perfectly possible for there to be room for a two way cycle lane sometimes going against the traffic flow, as there would be in St James Street. And as a poster said earlier at the bottom of Trafalgar Street. Remember, one way systems are laid out with 4-wheel vehicles, parked cars, etc in mind so I'm sure we can solve this specific problem very easily. More generally, the assertion that only a "few" cyclists ride on the pavement is simply laughable. It's "most", and we all know that. Perfectly understandable on major busy fast roads, but so many cyclists seem to view cycling simply as a quicker way of walking. I'm afraid it's usually just plain ignorance and selfishness that's to blame. tarik
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Harry Callahan says...

Barney123 wrote:
Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them.

But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use.

Oh you mean the dynamics of road use for CAR drivers, ie the ability to get from a to b as quickly as possible and sod everyone else, you have just proved my point perfectly about the me,me,me attitude!!!.
[quote][p][bold]Barney123[/bold] wrote: Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use. [/p][/quote]Oh you mean the dynamics of road use for CAR drivers, ie the ability to get from a to b as quickly as possible and sod everyone else, you have just proved my point perfectly about the me,me,me attitude!!!. Harry Callahan
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Harry Callahan says...

Just for you misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement,
"On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)"
Just for you misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement, "On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required." Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens. "CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice. I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)" Harry Callahan
  • Score: 0

8:50pm Thu 6 Aug 09

davyboy says...

mark 62 wrote:
BiggerH wrote:
maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful
its not the bus drivers fault is idiots with phones, or ipods that constantly walk across roads without looking, north st has had thousands spent, and people still cross the road between busses! jaywalking should be banned. town is full of idiots.
quite right. all cyclists are subject to the highway code. riding the nwrong way down one-way streets is illegal. give the penalty tickets out, not advice. like biggerh says, the town is full of idiots, who will blame anyone but themselves when they get hurt. if you walk out in front of a bus, it will hurt, but if you don't look, or are on your phone, don't blame anyone else.
[quote][p][bold]mark 62[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BiggerH[/bold] wrote: maybe the powers that be should concentrate on the speed of buses, before someone is killed - oh hang on, people do get killed come on police - do something useful [/p][/quote]its not the bus drivers fault is idiots with phones, or ipods that constantly walk across roads without looking, north st has had thousands spent, and people still cross the road between busses! jaywalking should be banned. town is full of idiots.[/p][/quote]quite right. all cyclists are subject to the highway code. riding the nwrong way down one-way streets is illegal. give the penalty tickets out, not advice. like biggerh says, the town is full of idiots, who will blame anyone but themselves when they get hurt. if you walk out in front of a bus, it will hurt, but if you don't look, or are on your phone, don't blame anyone else. davyboy
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Thu 6 Aug 09

stan bailey says...

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Stu wrote:
cing wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary
If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.
The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close.

I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving.

I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous.

Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing.

Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.
Bibble

When you're on your motorbike, battery powered no doubt, down the park has your mummy/daddy/guardian

/carer taken the stabilizers off yet ?
I think Bibble is probably a kid as well. Do you think the police took her bottle of cider off her in Preston Park, and her daddy will not complain to the police complaints and so she is having a hissy fit?
[quote][p][bold]Bog Vern[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cing[/bold] wrote: I am trying to increase the amount of cycling I do in Brighton, but I like to feel safe. For this reason I will sometimes go on the pavement, rather than squeeze along a road or through a junction that seems dangerous. Near the palace pier for example. I think that cylists have as much responsibility as drivers to ensure the safety of everyone around them, but until Brighton has really good cycle routes I will be found on the odd bit of pavement here and there - or back in my car if necessary[/p][/quote]If you havent got the skills or the confidence to cycle within the law then you shouldnt be cycling full stop.[/p][/quote]The problem with your simplistic argument is that it assumes motorised vehicle drivers are also driving within the law. Many do not. Many pass two-wheelers perilously close. I have experienced this sometimes when on a motorbike, and it is not good. I am not going to trust some driver who has just managed to get alongside me. He has already demonstrated bad driving. I don't blame cyclists for riding on the pavement at times. The roads are dangerous. Possessing skills to ride a bike is one thing. Possessing confidence depends to a big extent on what other road users are doing. Not everyone who rides on the pavement does so in a dangerous manner.[/p][/quote]Bibble When you're on your motorbike, battery powered no doubt, down the park has your mummy/daddy/guardian /carer taken the stabilizers off yet ?[/p][/quote]I think Bibble is probably a kid as well. Do you think the police took her bottle of cider off her in Preston Park, and her daddy will not complain to the police complaints and so she is having a hissy fit? stan bailey
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement.

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_069837

If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal...
Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069837 If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal... Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

11:12pm Thu 6 Aug 09

zumo says...

And another thing.....If we had "proper" cycle lanes,as in parts of Europe, this probably wouldn't be an issue. Fat chance of me seeing that in my lifetime. Politicians don't really want you cycling.All that fuel tax lost.
And another thing.....If we had "proper" cycle lanes,as in parts of Europe, this probably wouldn't be an issue. Fat chance of me seeing that in my lifetime. Politicians don't really want you cycling.All that fuel tax lost. zumo
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Thu 6 Aug 09

CliveA says...

Motorcyclist - seeing as you have repeated yourself verbatim, it seems I have to repeat myself too.

The prohibition on pavement cycling is not total, as you claim. There are shared use pavements, indicated by the appropriate blue sign, in several locations around Brighton.

So, not "in any circumstances" at all.

Motorcyclist - seeing as you have repeated yourself verbatim, it seems I have to repeat myself too. The prohibition on pavement cycling is not total, as you claim. There are shared use pavements, indicated by the appropriate blue sign, in several locations around Brighton. So, not "in any circumstances" at all. CliveA
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Thu 6 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

CliveA - Although I concede your point, obviously I was not referring to "shared use" pathways or toucan crossings - as these are areas where cycling is specifically permitted. Anti-social behaviour of all kinds adversely affects the spirit of the community, whether this behaviour is exhibited by cyclists or by anyone else.
CliveA - Although I concede your point, obviously I was not referring to "shared use" pathways or toucan crossings - as these are areas where cycling is specifically permitted. Anti-social behaviour of all kinds adversely affects the spirit of the community, whether this behaviour is exhibited by cyclists or by anyone else. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

12:25am Fri 7 Aug 09

kkj says...

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.
Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.
You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.
I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post. The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day. See, easy. When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'.
Did I say that? No.

So using your own words, I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion from my post.

The police made a big hullabaloo about stopping some speeding motorcyclists. Now we have a hullabaloo about cyclists.

How about a hullabaloo about violent crime? Or is that too hard for the police to deal with?
You missed the point entirely.

You drew an incorrect conclusion from my post, so I deliberately drew an incorrect conclusion from your post. I even signposted it (See, easy).

By the way, motorcyclist was not inferring anything, you were (see post 1:58pm).

Regarding what I 'obviously prefer', if I had to choose between ignorant arrogant cyclists who believe that the law does not apply to them and 'violent criminals', I would naturally prefer the ignorant arrogant cyclist, as there is hope that they can be educated; there is little hope that a 'violent criminal' could be. But why should I have to choose? Both are criminals, can I not have both eradicated? Or at least targeted?
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kkj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: There you have it. Regular violent crime in a street, and is there a policeman to be seen? No. A little traffic "crime". Police have a crackdown. Sussex Police are a total joke.[/p][/quote]Whereas there is no violent crime in London, and all cyclists behave impeccably. I live in this area and welcome the crackdown. Well I would if I thought it would achieve anything.[/p][/quote]You obviously prefer the police to target soft crime like this than violent crime. With that kind of thinking you could be Chief Constable.[/p][/quote]I don't know how you draw that conclusion from my post. The conclusion I draw is that you would allow anything to happen in the rest of the City as long as Spring Street Gardens are patrolled 24 hours day, every day. See, easy. When you know me you can justifiably comment on what I 'obviously prefer'.[/p][/quote]Did I say that? No. So using your own words, I don't know how you've drawn that conclusion from my post. The police made a big hullabaloo about stopping some speeding motorcyclists. Now we have a hullabaloo about cyclists. How about a hullabaloo about violent crime? Or is that too hard for the police to deal with?[/p][/quote]You missed the point entirely. You drew an incorrect conclusion from my post, so I deliberately drew an incorrect conclusion from your post. I even signposted it (See, easy). By the way, motorcyclist was not inferring anything, you were (see post 1:58pm). Regarding what I 'obviously prefer', if I had to choose between ignorant arrogant cyclists who believe that the law does not apply to them and 'violent criminals', I would naturally prefer the ignorant arrogant cyclist, as there is hope that they can be educated; there is little hope that a 'violent criminal' could be. But why should I have to choose? Both are criminals, can I not have both eradicated? Or at least targeted? kkj
  • Score: 0

12:51am Fri 7 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

Well said kkj...dribbling Bibble has a penchant for deliberately drawing incorrect conclusions, and making ridiculous inferences, from others' posts. It is irritating but I try to ignore it.
Well said kkj...dribbling Bibble has a penchant for deliberately drawing incorrect conclusions, and making ridiculous inferences, from others' posts. It is irritating but I try to ignore it. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

7:42am Fri 7 Aug 09

Harry Callahan says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement.

http://www.direct.go
v.uk/en/TravelAndTra
nsport/Highwaycode/D
G_069837

If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal...
You obviously have no idea how the law works, I bet as a motorcyclist you never speed? not even 4mph over the speed limit, of coarse you do, well that is illegal too and you should be fined and have points on your licence! see I was just proving a point that we can all be intolerant and ignorant, may I suggest that you wind your head in and get a life, when you can honestly say you do not break ANY laws then you can start shooting your mouth off about whats right and wrong!!!!!!!!.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069837 If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal...[/p][/quote]You obviously have no idea how the law works, I bet as a motorcyclist you never speed? not even 4mph over the speed limit, of coarse you do, well that is illegal too and you should be fined and have points on your licence! see I was just proving a point that we can all be intolerant and ignorant, may I suggest that you wind your head in and get a life, when you can honestly say you do not break ANY laws then you can start shooting your mouth off about whats right and wrong!!!!!!!!. Harry Callahan
  • Score: 0

9:15am Fri 7 Aug 09

King from Hove says...

I have a fantastic and original idea for our arrogant couldnt care less about pedestrians nor the law cyclists.Why not use Cycle lanes which were paid for by the taxpayer so you can cycle away for free.Yes free.No cycle taxes/no insurances/mot's/spe
eding and parking fines/basically law unto yourselves.
I have a fantastic and original idea for our arrogant couldnt care less about pedestrians nor the law cyclists.Why not use Cycle lanes which were paid for by the taxpayer so you can cycle away for free.Yes free.No cycle taxes/no insurances/mot's/spe eding and parking fines/basically law unto yourselves. King from Hove
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Fri 7 Aug 09

Motorcyclist says...

Harry C - I can assure you that I know how the law works - it is really not that complicated. You might not agree with the law or consider that it is fair but anyone choosing to break the law should be fully aware of the possible consequences if they are caught. The response to this article demonstrates that there are strong feelings about both anti-social cycling and the police action. The fact that we do not read about prosecutions for careless or reckless cycling indicates that the police believe issuing paltry fines or questionnaires is sufficient to deter this anti-social behaviour. If these tactics do not deter ant-social cycling then perhaps prosecutions are the answer. Engaging in constructive debate while referring to appropriate reference sources is hardly shooting my mouth off about what is right and wrong. Many people are intolerant of anti-social cycling and many cyclists are ignorant of the law. I am ignoring your abusive comments and excessive exclamation marks as they are just an unnecessary distraction. Ride safely - live to ride.
Harry C - I can assure you that I know how the law works - it is really not that complicated. You might not agree with the law or consider that it is fair but anyone choosing to break the law should be fully aware of the possible consequences if they are caught. The response to this article demonstrates that there are strong feelings about both anti-social cycling and the police action. The fact that we do not read about prosecutions for careless or reckless cycling indicates that the police believe issuing paltry fines or questionnaires is sufficient to deter this anti-social behaviour. If these tactics do not deter ant-social cycling then perhaps prosecutions are the answer. Engaging in constructive debate while referring to appropriate reference sources is hardly shooting my mouth off about what is right and wrong. Many people are intolerant of anti-social cycling and many cyclists are ignorant of the law. I am ignoring your abusive comments and excessive exclamation marks as they are just an unnecessary distraction. Ride safely - live to ride. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Fri 7 Aug 09

Brightonscouse2 says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement.

http://www.direct.go

v.uk/en/TravelAndTra

nsport/Highwaycode/D

G_069837

If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal...
How is someone riding on the pavement not a minor breach of the law where a police officer should use the full penalty for breaking that law? How many pedestrians have been injured by all these cyclists riding irresponsibly on the pavement? I believe to numbers are as close to 0 as you can get and alot less then the amount of cyclists killed or injured on the roads. You see cyclists are dmaned either way, ride on the pavement and the pedestrians (who have prbably just got out of their cars) are up in arms, ride on the road and car drivers do exactly the same. I ride on the road regularly and the slightest hint of holding a car driver up is met with anger and abuse. I don't condone the cyclists riding down St James' St at all and think they must have a death wish but get so annoyed at the lack of consideration by car drivers who can't stand their precious lives being held up for a few seconds. After all i'm only trying to get from A to B too.

On another note did the PCSO'S at the bottom of St James' St do anything about the street drinkers whilst they were there?
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: Just for any misguided people out there who do not understand the law regarding cycling on the pavement....riding a bicycle on the pavement - in any circumstances is ILLEGAL under the Highways Act 1835 as amended. Should the police decide to prosecute, the offender will face a fine of up to £500. The 1999 legislation refers solely to the issue of fixed penalties - these do not require the offender being brought to court. The Home Office guidance only refers to the fixed penalty system - it does not make cycling on the pavement legal. As with any offence, the police must always consider the principle of "de minimis" which, in simple terms means that the law should be applied fairly and discretion applied where there is a technical breach of the law but that breach is so minor or inconsequential that it is insignificant. The Highway Code is very clear - you must not cycle on the pavement. http://www.direct.go v.uk/en/TravelAndTra nsport/Highwaycode/D G_069837 If a timid cyclist finds themselves intimidated by heavy traffic they can resort to the pavement as long as they get off their bike and push it. Not any more inconvenient than waiting at a traffic light for the green signal...[/p][/quote]How is someone riding on the pavement not a minor breach of the law where a police officer should use the full penalty for breaking that law? How many pedestrians have been injured by all these cyclists riding irresponsibly on the pavement? I believe to numbers are as close to 0 as you can get and alot less then the amount of cyclists killed or injured on the roads. You see cyclists are dmaned either way, ride on the pavement and the pedestrians (who have prbably just got out of their cars) are up in arms, ride on the road and car drivers do exactly the same. I ride on the road regularly and the slightest hint of holding a car driver up is met with anger and abuse. I don't condone the cyclists riding down St James' St at all and think they must have a death wish but get so annoyed at the lack of consideration by car drivers who can't stand their precious lives being held up for a few seconds. After all i'm only trying to get from A to B too. On another note did the PCSO'S at the bottom of St James' St do anything about the street drinkers whilst they were there? Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Fri 7 Aug 09

Petewizard says...

miasc wrote:
about time just because they ride bikes shouldnt make them above the law
Spot on my son.About time the police did something about this.
[quote][p][bold]miasc[/bold] wrote: about time just because they ride bikes shouldnt make them above the law [/p][/quote]Spot on my son.About time the police did something about this. Petewizard
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Fri 7 Aug 09

Randy Lahey says...

I love riding on pavements, it really makes me feel big and above the law. No one can touch me.

Especially when I cycle really quietly behind elderly people and fat women with kids, and when they turn round I shout "how'd you like them apples!" at the top of my voice, and jet off to my next adventure. I love feeling this big (and clever) so much that I sometimes even flout the law outside the police station. No-one can stop me. £30 fine? worth every penny for feeling this big.
I love riding on pavements, it really makes me feel big and above the law. No one can touch me. Especially when I cycle really quietly behind elderly people and fat women with kids, and when they turn round I shout "how'd you like them apples!" at the top of my voice, and jet off to my next adventure. I love feeling this big (and clever) so much that I sometimes even flout the law outside the police station. No-one can stop me. £30 fine? worth every penny for feeling this big. Randy Lahey
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Fri 7 Aug 09

CliveA says...

King from Hove - You ask "Why not use the cycle lanes"?

Several reasons:

1. There are simply not cycle lanes leading to every part of the city. They cater for some routes but understandably not all. You may prefer to see me on the seafront path, but maybe I'm just not heading in that direction.

2. Bad planning. Many of the cycle lanes, though well intentioned, are very poorly laid out, with baffling junctions, impossible right-angled corners, odd signage and mysterious routing.

3. Time. Using some of these routes adds significant time onto a route. If you're not in a hurry, then that's fine, but contrary to some sterotypes, most people on bikes are needing to get to work, school or elsewhere. It's not just motorists who dislike being held up.

3. Debris. Most of Brighton's cycle-lanes are relatively well kept, but some are scattered with broken glass and other debris, causing a risk of puncture.

4. Pedestrians. Contrary to the portrayal of pedestrians as hapless victims of careless cyclists, you may like to notice how many pedestrians wander in the cyclepaths, particularly along the seafront and down the Steine. It's a nuisance having to ride along constantly stopping, ringing bells and repeating 'excuse me' as you ride.

5. The best network of cycle routes is the road network. The roads are paid for not by vehicle excise duty but by Council Tax, paid by most citizens, regardless of whether or not they use a car or a bike. Through taxation, non-car drivers actually subsidise the expensive maintenance of the road network that is worn out by motor vehicles. So the roads are there for everyone to use. There is no compulsion to use a cycle path, and it's only the volume, speed and poor driving standard of traffic that makes the idea of cycle lanes necessary.
King from Hove - You ask "Why not use the cycle lanes"? Several reasons: 1. There are simply not cycle lanes leading to every part of the city. They cater for some routes but understandably not all. You may prefer to see me on the seafront path, but maybe I'm just not heading in that direction. 2. Bad planning. Many of the cycle lanes, though well intentioned, are very poorly laid out, with baffling junctions, impossible right-angled corners, odd signage and mysterious routing. 3. Time. Using some of these routes adds significant time onto a route. If you're not in a hurry, then that's fine, but contrary to some sterotypes, most people on bikes are needing to get to work, school or elsewhere. It's not just motorists who dislike being held up. 3. Debris. Most of Brighton's cycle-lanes are relatively well kept, but some are scattered with broken glass and other debris, causing a risk of puncture. 4. Pedestrians. Contrary to the portrayal of pedestrians as hapless victims of careless cyclists, you may like to notice how many pedestrians wander in the cyclepaths, particularly along the seafront and down the Steine. It's a nuisance having to ride along constantly stopping, ringing bells and repeating 'excuse me' as you ride. 5. The best network of cycle routes is the road network. The roads are paid for not by vehicle excise duty but by Council Tax, paid by most citizens, regardless of whether or not they use a car or a bike. Through taxation, non-car drivers actually subsidise the expensive maintenance of the road network that is worn out by motor vehicles. So the roads are there for everyone to use. There is no compulsion to use a cycle path, and it's only the volume, speed and poor driving standard of traffic that makes the idea of cycle lanes necessary. CliveA
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Sat 8 Aug 09

DougM says...

CliveA wrote:
King from Hove - You ask "Why not use the cycle lanes"?

Several reasons:

1. There are simply not cycle lanes leading to every part of the city. They cater for some routes but understandably not all. You may prefer to see me on the seafront path, but maybe I'm just not heading in that direction.

2. Bad planning. Many of the cycle lanes, though well intentioned, are very poorly laid out, with baffling junctions, impossible right-angled corners, odd signage and mysterious routing.

3. Time. Using some of these routes adds significant time onto a route. If you're not in a hurry, then that's fine, but contrary to some sterotypes, most people on bikes are needing to get to work, school or elsewhere. It's not just motorists who dislike being held up.

3. Debris. Most of Brighton's cycle-lanes are relatively well kept, but some are scattered with broken glass and other debris, causing a risk of puncture.

4. Pedestrians. Contrary to the portrayal of pedestrians as hapless victims of careless cyclists, you may like to notice how many pedestrians wander in the cyclepaths, particularly along the seafront and down the Steine. It's a nuisance having to ride along constantly stopping, ringing bells and repeating 'excuse me' as you ride.

5. The best network of cycle routes is the road network. The roads are paid for not by vehicle excise duty but by Council Tax, paid by most citizens, regardless of whether or not they use a car or a bike. Through taxation, non-car drivers actually subsidise the expensive maintenance of the road network that is worn out by motor vehicles. So the roads are there for everyone to use. There is no compulsion to use a cycle path, and it's only the volume, speed and poor driving standard of traffic that makes the idea of cycle lanes necessary.
CliveA, you simply can't go around posting things like that.
You're clearly well informed on the subject and as such all your comments will only be ignored.
Please stick to the tried and tested method of posting pig-ignorant, knee-jerk, reactionary drivel if you want any of the half-wits on this site to read or understand your comments.
[quote][p][bold]CliveA[/bold] wrote: King from Hove - You ask "Why not use the cycle lanes"? Several reasons: 1. There are simply not cycle lanes leading to every part of the city. They cater for some routes but understandably not all. You may prefer to see me on the seafront path, but maybe I'm just not heading in that direction. 2. Bad planning. Many of the cycle lanes, though well intentioned, are very poorly laid out, with baffling junctions, impossible right-angled corners, odd signage and mysterious routing. 3. Time. Using some of these routes adds significant time onto a route. If you're not in a hurry, then that's fine, but contrary to some sterotypes, most people on bikes are needing to get to work, school or elsewhere. It's not just motorists who dislike being held up. 3. Debris. Most of Brighton's cycle-lanes are relatively well kept, but some are scattered with broken glass and other debris, causing a risk of puncture. 4. Pedestrians. Contrary to the portrayal of pedestrians as hapless victims of careless cyclists, you may like to notice how many pedestrians wander in the cyclepaths, particularly along the seafront and down the Steine. It's a nuisance having to ride along constantly stopping, ringing bells and repeating 'excuse me' as you ride. 5. The best network of cycle routes is the road network. The roads are paid for not by vehicle excise duty but by Council Tax, paid by most citizens, regardless of whether or not they use a car or a bike. Through taxation, non-car drivers actually subsidise the expensive maintenance of the road network that is worn out by motor vehicles. So the roads are there for everyone to use. There is no compulsion to use a cycle path, and it's only the volume, speed and poor driving standard of traffic that makes the idea of cycle lanes necessary. [/p][/quote]CliveA, you simply can't go around posting things like that. You're clearly well informed on the subject and as such all your comments will only be ignored. Please stick to the tried and tested method of posting pig-ignorant, knee-jerk, reactionary drivel if you want any of the half-wits on this site to read or understand your comments. DougM
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Sat 8 Aug 09

lastgasp says...

What is the penalty for car drivers who park on cycle paths or pedestrians who walk down them. Burning for the first and a spell in hospital for the second may give cyclists the opportunity to be well behaved. x
What is the penalty for car drivers who park on cycle paths or pedestrians who walk down them. Burning for the first and a spell in hospital for the second may give cyclists the opportunity to be well behaved. x lastgasp
  • Score: 0

11:24am Tue 11 Aug 09

Bryan555 says...

Barney123 wrote:
Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them.

But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use.

Barney123, that is such an arrogant comment. You talk about respect and understanding, but show none.

The Highway code, if you LOOK, also suggests leaving at least the same amount of room for vulnerable vehicles as you would for a car, so if cyclists or horses are riding 2 abreast, it makes no difference to the flow of traffic.

If the respect and general dynamics of road use involve cars overtaking vulnerable vehicles into oncoming traffic when there is not enough room to do so safely, is it any wonder that they choose alternative routes? I think everyone should stick to the rules and guidance as is reasonable, and am not defending law-breaking cyclists, but I agree with some of the other comments that the reasons need to be looked at.

As a driver, I find it inconvenient having to slow down for cyclists, horses and pedestrians on the road, but not only is it polite to do so, but it is the rules, and not to do so would risk the safety of other, legitimate road users.

It seems to me that us car drivers have the run of the roads, and I certainly find it annoying when slower vehicles are in my way. And pedestrians have a reasonable network of pavements, that should be kept clear of fast moving vehicles, so where do the cyclists, horses and other slower moving vehicles have to get around? Currently, outside of the scant provision of poorly planned cycle lanes and out of town, muddy bridleways, they are forced to share the roads with us, so I suggest we show them a little respect. They do, after all, have equal rights to use the road. I guess if that means my journey takes a minute longer, I'll have to live with it. I don't have the right to pass slower moving vehicles unless it is safe to do so, which means slowing down and giving enough space for cyclists or horses.

That said, I think fines should be given to those breaking the law motorists and cyclists alike. I understand why cyclists should feel 'outside the system' as they are often treated that way, but cyclists that break the rules are making that situation worse for everyone, even the ones that stick to the rules.
[quote][p][bold]Barney123[/bold] wrote: Cycling Two abreast. Have a LOOK at the highway code. It's advice, not a law. The ones relating to laws have them listed beneath them. But actually cycling two abreast is simply a very arrogant thing to do. It makes the other road users aware that they have no apparent respect or understanding for the general dynamics of road use. [/p][/quote]Barney123, that is such an arrogant comment. You talk about respect and understanding, but show none. The Highway code, if you LOOK, also suggests leaving at least the same amount of room for vulnerable vehicles as you would for a car, so if cyclists or horses are riding 2 abreast, it makes no difference to the flow of traffic. If the respect and general dynamics of road use involve cars overtaking vulnerable vehicles into oncoming traffic when there is not enough room to do so safely, is it any wonder that they choose alternative routes? I think everyone should stick to the rules and guidance as is reasonable, and am not defending law-breaking cyclists, but I agree with some of the other comments that the reasons need to be looked at. As a driver, I find it inconvenient having to slow down for cyclists, horses and pedestrians on the road, but not only is it polite to do so, but it is the rules, and not to do so would risk the safety of other, legitimate road users. It seems to me that us car drivers have the run of the roads, and I certainly find it annoying when slower vehicles are in my way. And pedestrians have a reasonable network of pavements, that should be kept clear of fast moving vehicles, so where do the cyclists, horses and other slower moving vehicles have to get around? Currently, outside of the scant provision of poorly planned cycle lanes and out of town, muddy bridleways, they are forced to share the roads with us, so I suggest we show them a little respect. They do, after all, have equal rights to use the road. I guess if that means my journey takes a minute longer, I'll have to live with it. I don't have the right to pass slower moving vehicles unless it is safe to do so, which means slowing down and giving enough space for cyclists or horses. That said, I think fines should be given to those breaking the law motorists and cyclists alike. I understand why cyclists should feel 'outside the system' as they are often treated that way, but cyclists that break the rules are making that situation worse for everyone, even the ones that stick to the rules. Bryan555
  • Score: 0

9:42am Wed 12 Aug 09

CliveA says...

Thanks Bryan555.

That is one of the most intelligent comments that has been made, and welcome evidence that not all motorists seem to lack understanding of other road users.
Thanks Bryan555. That is one of the most intelligent comments that has been made, and welcome evidence that not all motorists seem to lack understanding of other road users. CliveA
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Wed 12 Aug 09

Russ says...

I cycle to work and back through Brighton every weekday, and on my way home I use St.James street. I often see cyclysts riding the wrong way down the street, and also see a lot jumping traffic lights ion general, but I myself and not one of those people.

My own experience of St.james's street is this... I often have to dodge pedestrians who are travalling in the same direction as me who just step off the pavement because it's not wide enough for them and whoever's coming their way. This is dangerous for me and them. I've had several close calls. I also got knocked off my bike by someone opening their car door the moment I rode past, I still have the scar to prove it.

Whilst riding generally I often get cut up by cars who overtake me only to stop immediately and a red light. I continuously have to brake when I shouldn't have to because someone has pulled out in front me A) thinking they have enough time, or B) because they just haven't seen me.

The bottom line is cycling in Brighton is very hazardous even when you're on the ball and concentrating. I have no pitty or respect for idiots that don't obey the rules of the road, whether they're driving OR cycling. They SHOULD BE FINED, the only way to make people learnt is by hitting them in the wallet.

As for all the motorists that think cyclists are a pain, what the hell are you doing driving in the town centre anyway? Get a bus, walk, ride a bike. You know, we think you're a pain too!
I cycle to work and back through Brighton every weekday, and on my way home I use St.James street. I often see cyclysts riding the wrong way down the street, and also see a lot jumping traffic lights ion general, but I myself and not one of those people. My own experience of St.james's street is this... I often have to dodge pedestrians who are travalling in the same direction as me who just step off the pavement because it's not wide enough for them and whoever's coming their way. This is dangerous for me and them. I've had several close calls. I also got knocked off my bike by someone opening their car door the moment I rode past, I still have the scar to prove it. Whilst riding generally I often get cut up by cars who overtake me only to stop immediately and a red light. I continuously have to brake when I shouldn't have to because someone has pulled out in front me A) thinking they have enough time, or B) because they just haven't seen me. The bottom line is cycling in Brighton is very hazardous even when you're on the ball and concentrating. I have no pitty or respect for idiots that don't obey the rules of the road, whether they're driving OR cycling. They SHOULD BE FINED, the only way to make people learnt is by hitting them in the wallet. As for all the motorists that think cyclists are a pain, what the hell are you doing driving in the town centre anyway? Get a bus, walk, ride a bike. You know, we think you're a pain too! Russ
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Wed 12 Aug 09

Russ says...

bibble wrote:
chris elmes wrote:
There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW.
Ah yes. All the superfluous things that constitute "traffic management" which only slows down traffic.

Who has not been in a traffic queue with an adjacent empty bus lane? Then a bus passes with 5 people on board.

All the traffic measures cost lots of money, and the councillors know how to spend it. The fact that it doesn't work is immaterial to them.
Does this not in some craxzy way tell you to get on the bus and stop clogging the roads with your pointless trip to churchill square?
[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chris elmes[/bold] wrote: There is a simple solution to this,remove all the choke points from St James st,change the traffic light sequence top and bottom and have St James st as a two way street again.Oh and whilst we're at it remove all the chicanes,speed humps,bus only lanes,return London rd and Western road back to two way routes for all traffic,remove the crossing lights on the palace pier roundabout that(diliberatly?)ca uses massive conjestion(the origenal crossings are about 100 yards from the roundabout and still operational its the ones on the roundabout that cause gridlock),get rid of the stupid 20 mph limits,the only reason they are there is so that funding is used up(or it gets cut)or the scum that we(in my opinion)laughingly call councillors do to get votes and tell us they work in our best intreasts. Finally and this is the real biggie ENFORCE THE LAW.[/p][/quote]Ah yes. All the superfluous things that constitute "traffic management" which only slows down traffic. Who has not been in a traffic queue with an adjacent empty bus lane? Then a bus passes with 5 people on board. All the traffic measures cost lots of money, and the councillors know how to spend it. The fact that it doesn't work is immaterial to them. [/p][/quote]Does this not in some craxzy way tell you to get on the bus and stop clogging the roads with your pointless trip to churchill square? Russ
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree