Petition in place to allow cycling on Weymouth seafront

Dorset Echo: PEDAL POWER: Jason West and his bike on the Esplanade PEDAL POWER: Jason West and his bike on the Esplanade

A PETITION to get cycling allowed along Weymouth seafront is set to bring the long-running debate back to the council agenda.

The topic cropped up again on a new web portal which has been set up to share ideas and vision on exciting projects in Weymouth and Portland.

Jason West and Baron Miles founded weyforward.net to help residents share their ideas on how to improve Weymouth.

It comes as an article in the Observer newspaper described Weymouth as a ‘graveyard of ambition’. It prompted a huge backlash as well as calls to make changes.

With a number of topics being discussed on the portal, the cycling issue along the Esplanade is fast gaining momentum, with more than 480 signatures on a petition so far.

At least 600 signatures are needed for the issue to go to council debate.

Mr West, who is an experienced cyclist, said: “Cycling is banned along the Esplanade all year round between the Pavilion all the way along to the SeaLife Park.

“Someone, somewhere has confused pedalling, (cycling) with peddling, hawking, street selling, and the result is that the cycling community of Weymouth & Portland and all of the healthy cycling tourists we welcome are banned from riding their bikes on the seafront all year round, 24 hours a day, due to an ancient and misread bye-law.”

Bye-laws making it an offence to cycle on the promenade have been in place since 1976.

The council has considered the issue in previous years and in 2005 undertook a comprehensive review and assessment of the cycling restrictions that applied to the promenades, including an extensive public consultation.

The results showed that respondents considered cycling should continue to not be permitted along the promenade between the Pavilion and the junction of the Esplanade with Preston Road.

The issue was again fully debated by councillors in 2008.

Mr West, a digital education publisher from Weymouth, said: “Weyforward is a great barometer of what people want to change.

“Once people get behind an idea it will get momentum or someone will start to help and do practical applications to make it happen. “The cycle idea just took off and it has hundreds of signatures now.

“With NHS cuts and green values promoted in our society it makes no sense to me that people are being told they cannot cycle along the route.”

Mr West will present the petition to Christine James, spokesman for transport and infrastructure at Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, when 600 signatures have been collected.

Cllr James said: “I have always questioned as to why we can’t get cycling on the seafront. It does need to be debated again. The byelaw is ridiculous – once it has reached 600 signatures they can present it to me and it will be debated by the council again.”

Weyforward allows members of the public to post ideas on how to improve the borough and then giving them the option to vote for their favourites.

It is also proving a hit on Twitter using #Weyforward.

To sign the petition visit secure.avaaz.org and sear for ‘Weymouth Portland and Borough Council Allow pedalling on_the_seafront_ie_cycling’

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:08am Tue 1 Jul 14

AManFromMars says...

"Someone, somewhere has confused pedalling, (cycling) with peddling", Citation required.
"Someone, somewhere has confused pedalling, (cycling) with peddling", Citation required. AManFromMars
  • Score: 7

9:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

prestonpete says...

Have people not realised yet that petitions don't work in Weymouth? Petitions merely force council meetings to discuss the issue, and for then for council members to laugh at how powerful they are. The council then contemplate how they know so much about everything, and the value of nothing. Then, they decide that they know best, and maintain their decision that they made (rightly or wrongly) in the first place. Look at the petition set up to keep Weymouth's only TIC on the seafront. Over 2,000 people signed that, to keep a service on the seafront. The council refused to listen, thinking that they knew better, but they moved it anyway. Then, when they realised it didn't work in its new location, they closed it! They just don't listen, and I doubt for a moment they'll allow cycling on the prom!
Have people not realised yet that petitions don't work in Weymouth? Petitions merely force council meetings to discuss the issue, and for then for council members to laugh at how powerful they are. The council then contemplate how they know so much about everything, and the value of nothing. Then, they decide that they know best, and maintain their decision that they made (rightly or wrongly) in the first place. Look at the petition set up to keep Weymouth's only TIC on the seafront. Over 2,000 people signed that, to keep a service on the seafront. The council refused to listen, thinking that they knew better, but they moved it anyway. Then, when they realised it didn't work in its new location, they closed it! They just don't listen, and I doubt for a moment they'll allow cycling on the prom! prestonpete
  • Score: 4

9:18am Tue 1 Jul 14

peskykat says...

As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .
As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease . peskykat
  • Score: 31

9:38am Tue 1 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Ignore the nay sayers.
This town needs to participate in the current century not the previous one. Cycling is good for the town, the towns people and the tourists. There is every reason this should succeed and not one reason that it should fail.
The seafront has a perfectly adequate amount of space to allow a cycle path - for crying out a loud a land train goes up and down it every five minutes! not to mention full size mobility scooters.
Pedestrians and cyclists will have to learn to get along just as they do in places like Brighton...
Ignore the nay sayers. This town needs to participate in the current century not the previous one. Cycling is good for the town, the towns people and the tourists. There is every reason this should succeed and not one reason that it should fail. The seafront has a perfectly adequate amount of space to allow a cycle path - for crying out a loud a land train goes up and down it every five minutes! not to mention full size mobility scooters. Pedestrians and cyclists will have to learn to get along just as they do in places like Brighton... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 0

9:42am Tue 1 Jul 14

annotater says...

Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.
Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway. annotater
  • Score: 16

9:42am Tue 1 Jul 14

Laughing gnome says...

I cycle every day & totally agree with peskykat. Too many tossers out there !
I cycle every day & totally agree with peskykat. Too many tossers out there ! Laughing gnome
  • Score: 12

9:48am Tue 1 Jul 14

JoeyJo says...

In 2005 the council voted to allow cycling on the prom with summertime restrictions but failed to implement the decision.
In 2005 the council voted to allow cycling on the prom with summertime restrictions but failed to implement the decision. JoeyJo
  • Score: 5

9:48am Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

So when the accident happens direct them to the nearest Lawyer. That will suit Nantes right on the Sea Front.
So when the accident happens direct them to the nearest Lawyer. That will suit Nantes right on the Sea Front. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 0

10:04am Tue 1 Jul 14

monkeydog says...

annotater wrote:
Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.
It's illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement. The Highway Code is not law.
[quote][p][bold]annotater[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.[/p][/quote]It's illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement. The Highway Code is not law. monkeydog
  • Score: 12

10:39am Tue 1 Jul 14

caapprentice says...

Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?
Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need? caapprentice
  • Score: 14

10:52am Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Not that popular an idea then is it.
Not that popular an idea then is it. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

11:01am Tue 1 Jul 14

Brian.H says...

Only cyclists with child under a certain age to cycle along the esplanade. Older experienced cyclists can use the road or use the other cycle paths to get into town.
Only cyclists with child under a certain age to cycle along the esplanade. Older experienced cyclists can use the road or use the other cycle paths to get into town. Brian.H
  • Score: 19

11:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

monkeydog wrote:
annotater wrote:
Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.
It's illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement. The Highway Code is not law.
Quote from The Highway Code:

Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
[quote][p][bold]monkeydog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]annotater[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.[/p][/quote]It's illegal to ride a bicycle on a pavement. The Highway Code is not law.[/p][/quote]Quote from The Highway Code: Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. Rule 64 You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Bob Goulding
  • Score: 15

11:24am Tue 1 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

peskykat wrote:
As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .
not much worse than a snobby cyclist.

Well done sir, well done
[quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .[/p][/quote]not much worse than a snobby cyclist. Well done sir, well done elloello1980
  • Score: 0

11:27am Tue 1 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back elloello1980
  • Score: -8

11:27am Tue 1 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back elloello1980
  • Score: -8

11:35am Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Brian.H wrote:
Only cyclists with child under a certain age to cycle along the esplanade. Older experienced cyclists can use the road or use the other cycle paths to get into town.
I would almost agree, in principal yes it obviously safer if the smaller ones are on the Esplanade, but, how do you police this? What age limit, it raises too many problems. Also, A 5 or 6 year old could potentially be more dangerous, they can get up quite a speed and have less awareness of the dangers.

Why not just walk the mile, they have the rest of Weymouth to cycle which has pretty good cycle paths the Rodwell Trail, they can cycle further up from the Sealife Centre to Preston where there are less people.

All that is being sensibly stopped is Cycling on what is supposed to be
"The Crown Jewels" Weymouth Beach and Promenade.

Another point is, you can open it up, and I dare say a high percentage will cycle carefully, BUT like others have said there are the nutters that will just spoil it for everyone else.

Sure fire accident waiting to happen. When was the last one? Didn't a older gent get knocked down and break his leg?

Mr West looks more than capable of riding on the road, I don't get it at all.
[quote][p][bold]Brian.H[/bold] wrote: Only cyclists with child under a certain age to cycle along the esplanade. Older experienced cyclists can use the road or use the other cycle paths to get into town.[/p][/quote]I would almost agree, in principal yes it obviously safer if the smaller ones are on the Esplanade, but, how do you police this? What age limit, it raises too many problems. Also, A 5 or 6 year old could potentially be more dangerous, they can get up quite a speed and have less awareness of the dangers. Why not just walk the mile, they have the rest of Weymouth to cycle which has pretty good cycle paths the Rodwell Trail, they can cycle further up from the Sealife Centre to Preston where there are less people. All that is being sensibly stopped is Cycling on what is supposed to be "The Crown Jewels" Weymouth Beach and Promenade. Another point is, you can open it up, and I dare say a high percentage will cycle carefully, BUT like others have said there are the nutters that will just spoil it for everyone else. Sure fire accident waiting to happen. When was the last one? Didn't a older gent get knocked down and break his leg? Mr West looks more than capable of riding on the road, I don't get it at all. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 7

11:42am Tue 1 Jul 14

westbaywonder says...

Just bring back the fairy lights !
Just bring back the fairy lights ! westbaywonder
  • Score: -1

11:53am Tue 1 Jul 14

shy talk says...

“The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation.

For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster.
“The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation. For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster. shy talk
  • Score: 16

12:20pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

elloello1980 wrote:
peskykat wrote:
As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .
not much worse than a snobby cyclist.

Well done sir, well done
You really struggle to make a comment without an insult.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .[/p][/quote]not much worse than a snobby cyclist. Well done sir, well done[/p][/quote]You really struggle to make a comment without an insult. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 5

12:22pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Get a grip says...

Look the council needs to sort a few of the basics before they deal with matters like this.
Look the council needs to sort a few of the basics before they deal with matters like this. Get a grip
  • Score: 3

12:24pm Tue 1 Jul 14

peskykat says...

shy talk wrote:
“The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation.

For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster.
Well Said , out of season it is not a problem but I live very close to the seafront and often it is crowded with people !
[quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: “The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation. For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster.[/p][/quote]Well Said , out of season it is not a problem but I live very close to the seafront and often it is crowded with people ! peskykat
  • Score: 6

12:43pm Tue 1 Jul 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
peskykat wrote:
As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .
not much worse than a snobby cyclist.

Well done sir, well done
You really struggle to make a comment without an insult.
please pick out any insult.

Stating those who moan as moaners is fact and plain for all to see ;)
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: As a cyclist I will not be signing as there are too many irresponsible cyclists out there - you only have to see that when you are going down St Thomas St and St Mary's St after 10.30am, the esplanade is there so that toddlers can run around safely , elderly , disabled can wander at their ease .[/p][/quote]not much worse than a snobby cyclist. Well done sir, well done[/p][/quote]You really struggle to make a comment without an insult.[/p][/quote]please pick out any insult. Stating those who moan as moaners is fact and plain for all to see ;) elloello1980
  • Score: -11

1:16pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Big Marv says...

There are a lot of nobbers out there, but I am willing to bet that they just ignore the existing bylaw and cycle that stretch of the promenade already, regardless.

By allowing it for sensible cyclists will make the journey from town centre to Greenhill safer for cyclists.

We can't get away from those that give cyclists a bad name, just like we can't get away from those motorists that give the others a bad name or the pedestrians, etc.

The bigger picture is that everyone who travels in whatever form, needs to be considerate of other road/path users. Etiquette is what has been lost in recent decades.
There are a lot of nobbers out there, but I am willing to bet that they just ignore the existing bylaw and cycle that stretch of the promenade already, regardless. By allowing it for sensible cyclists will make the journey from town centre to Greenhill safer for cyclists. We can't get away from those that give cyclists a bad name, just like we can't get away from those motorists that give the others a bad name or the pedestrians, etc. The bigger picture is that everyone who travels in whatever form, needs to be considerate of other road/path users. Etiquette is what has been lost in recent decades. Big Marv
  • Score: 13

1:37pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Preston North End says...

I cycle a lot.

Consideration should be given to linking the Preston Beach Road cycle lane to the shared bus lane on the Esplanade via the Greenhill section of prom, outside of summer months, at commuter times. Otherwise, it's a bit of a duff idea.

Pedestrians don't want to and generally don't walk in a predictable way along the prom. Adding even sensible cyclists (most are) to that will impact the ambience and, inevitably, lead to incidents.
I cycle a lot. Consideration should be given to linking the Preston Beach Road cycle lane to the shared bus lane on the Esplanade via the Greenhill section of prom, outside of summer months, at commuter times. Otherwise, it's a bit of a duff idea. Pedestrians don't want to and generally don't walk in a predictable way along the prom. Adding even sensible cyclists (most are) to that will impact the ambience and, inevitably, lead to incidents. Preston North End
  • Score: 14

2:12pm Tue 1 Jul 14

WeyPeninsula says...

Blanket bans have a habit of polarizing public opinion. As shown in these comments. If the rest of the country can negotiate sensible, safe and inclusive cycling on seafronts why can't Weymouth? Let's start taking personal responsibility for our actions and become a little bit more tolerant. There are a range of options...from out of season (Sept to June), time limits (7pm to 9am), speed limits (xMPH), pedestrian priority signs...or a combination of one or more of them. The Greenhill roundabout is scary (and therefore risky) for less confident road cyclists. We also seem to want to encourage more out of season holidaymakers to come (see BID marketing campaign) so the activity holiday market is a prime target, of which cycling is a growing and lucrative part. Imagine the promotional images you could take to promote out of season or early morning cycling along the seafront? As for the nutters...we all need to take responsibility by a) not being one ourself and cycling safely and considerately to demonstrate the right way and b) having a polite word when you see it happening. There will always be risk attached to any outdoor activity but as others have said here and elsewhere, land trains, mobility scooters and dogs off leads or on super long extendable leads alongside loose cola-fuelled toddlers could potentially cause a terrible accident (without the involvement of a single bicycle). Let's talk about it, and think of everyone whilst we talk.
Blanket bans have a habit of polarizing public opinion. As shown in these comments. If the rest of the country can negotiate sensible, safe and inclusive cycling on seafronts why can't Weymouth? Let's start taking personal responsibility for our actions and become a little bit more tolerant. There are a range of options...from out of season (Sept to June), time limits (7pm to 9am), speed limits (xMPH), pedestrian priority signs...or a combination of one or more of them. The Greenhill roundabout is scary (and therefore risky) for less confident road cyclists. We also seem to want to encourage more out of season holidaymakers to come (see BID marketing campaign) so the activity holiday market is a prime target, of which cycling is a growing and lucrative part. Imagine the promotional images you could take to promote out of season or early morning cycling along the seafront? As for the nutters...we all need to take responsibility by a) not being one ourself and cycling safely and considerately to demonstrate the right way and b) having a polite word when you see it happening. There will always be risk attached to any outdoor activity but as others have said here and elsewhere, land trains, mobility scooters and dogs off leads or on super long extendable leads alongside loose cola-fuelled toddlers could potentially cause a terrible accident (without the involvement of a single bicycle). Let's talk about it, and think of everyone whilst we talk. WeyPeninsula
  • Score: 7

2:32pm Tue 1 Jul 14

scubadude says...

I am perfectly happy to ride around Greenhill roundabout and over the hill but for many cyclists and children those are daunting and difficult sections of road unless you are fast and confident. We don't need or want to cycle on "the Esplanade" but a proper, safe link between the Preston Beach and town beach cycle paths is needed.
The seafront pavement should be left to pedestrians and mobility scooters, can we start a poll on the same website with the opposite request to sensibly squash the first one?
I am perfectly happy to ride around Greenhill roundabout and over the hill but for many cyclists and children those are daunting and difficult sections of road unless you are fast and confident. We don't need or want to cycle on "the Esplanade" but a proper, safe link between the Preston Beach and town beach cycle paths is needed. The seafront pavement should be left to pedestrians and mobility scooters, can we start a poll on the same website with the opposite request to sensibly squash the first one? scubadude
  • Score: 10

2:38pm Tue 1 Jul 14

whatwhatwhateasy says...

I don't understand why this hasn't already happened. Are ladies only allowed to show their ankles on the beach? Archaic.
I don't understand why this hasn't already happened. Are ladies only allowed to show their ankles on the beach? Archaic. whatwhatwhateasy
  • Score: -1

3:13pm Tue 1 Jul 14

numbnuts846 says...

First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this
First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this numbnuts846
  • Score: -1

4:02pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

WeyPeninsula wrote:
Blanket bans have a habit of polarizing public opinion. As shown in these comments. If the rest of the country can negotiate sensible, safe and inclusive cycling on seafronts why can't Weymouth? Let's start taking personal responsibility for our actions and become a little bit more tolerant. There are a range of options...from out of season (Sept to June), time limits (7pm to 9am), speed limits (xMPH), pedestrian priority signs...or a combination of one or more of them. The Greenhill roundabout is scary (and therefore risky) for less confident road cyclists. We also seem to want to encourage more out of season holidaymakers to come (see BID marketing campaign) so the activity holiday market is a prime target, of which cycling is a growing and lucrative part. Imagine the promotional images you could take to promote out of season or early morning cycling along the seafront? As for the nutters...we all need to take responsibility by a) not being one ourself and cycling safely and considerately to demonstrate the right way and b) having a polite word when you see it happening. There will always be risk attached to any outdoor activity but as others have said here and elsewhere, land trains, mobility scooters and dogs off leads or on super long extendable leads alongside loose cola-fuelled toddlers could potentially cause a terrible accident (without the involvement of a single bicycle). Let's talk about it, and think of everyone whilst we talk.
Have a quiet word! Give me a break they are gone in seconds. This is not about promotion, it is about safety. You can promote Weymouth with photographs of Cyclists all over the place including the Sea Front. So that argument is pointless.

Speed Limits! How many bikes have got a speedo on them then? If you going to give us ideas on how this is going to be run, then please do your homework, more rubbish.

Can I ask why you use the term "cola fuelled toddlers" ? Thats just rubbish, utter rubbish. Talk yes, but use sensible terms.

And why do blanket bans polarize opinion? It is there for safety. Pulling out terms like polarize opinion has NO reflection on this at all.

Yes lets talk about it and think of everyone, and that's just NOT what you are doing, you are only thinking of your own website/peninsular plans.
[quote][p][bold]WeyPeninsula[/bold] wrote: Blanket bans have a habit of polarizing public opinion. As shown in these comments. If the rest of the country can negotiate sensible, safe and inclusive cycling on seafronts why can't Weymouth? Let's start taking personal responsibility for our actions and become a little bit more tolerant. There are a range of options...from out of season (Sept to June), time limits (7pm to 9am), speed limits (xMPH), pedestrian priority signs...or a combination of one or more of them. The Greenhill roundabout is scary (and therefore risky) for less confident road cyclists. We also seem to want to encourage more out of season holidaymakers to come (see BID marketing campaign) so the activity holiday market is a prime target, of which cycling is a growing and lucrative part. Imagine the promotional images you could take to promote out of season or early morning cycling along the seafront? As for the nutters...we all need to take responsibility by a) not being one ourself and cycling safely and considerately to demonstrate the right way and b) having a polite word when you see it happening. There will always be risk attached to any outdoor activity but as others have said here and elsewhere, land trains, mobility scooters and dogs off leads or on super long extendable leads alongside loose cola-fuelled toddlers could potentially cause a terrible accident (without the involvement of a single bicycle). Let's talk about it, and think of everyone whilst we talk.[/p][/quote]Have a quiet word! Give me a break they are gone in seconds. This is not about promotion, it is about safety. You can promote Weymouth with photographs of Cyclists all over the place including the Sea Front. So that argument is pointless. Speed Limits! How many bikes have got a speedo on them then? If you going to give us ideas on how this is going to be run, then please do your homework, more rubbish. Can I ask why you use the term "cola fuelled toddlers" ? Thats just rubbish, utter rubbish. Talk yes, but use sensible terms. And why do blanket bans polarize opinion? It is there for safety. Pulling out terms like polarize opinion has NO reflection on this at all. Yes lets talk about it and think of everyone, and that's just NOT what you are doing, you are only thinking of your own website/peninsular plans. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -8

4:09pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

numbnuts846 wrote:
First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this
Arh, Yes the Dogs, that's a worthwhile campaign to get rid of them on our beach, now that is the Weyforward. Don't tell me, Jason has a Dog.
[quote][p][bold]numbnuts846[/bold] wrote: First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this[/p][/quote]Arh, Yes the Dogs, that's a worthwhile campaign to get rid of them on our beach, now that is the Weyforward. Don't tell me, Jason has a Dog. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -1

5:41pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Behemoth says...

Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers. Behemoth
  • Score: 5

6:05pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
Democratic you say. So on your website headline "The polarised comment mongers are out on the Echo site again...step forward and" is democratic is it? Not in my book it's not. But I do appreciate you are trying to improve things, great, and I do wish you luck with that. Just don't agree with this one, and any of the reasons that Jason raised for it.

There is no doubt the Peninsula is an area that needs massive improvement, so before you get the wrong idea, I am all for it. However I will fight my corner for anything I don't agree with, especially when very poor ideas are put forward such as Bike Speed Limits, it don't cut it with me, and I will say so.

Weymouth's pride and joy is the Beach and the Harbour, they should in my view be made as Pedestrian friendly as possible. Which is not easy I know. But the more pedestrian friendly we get, the more people will come, to Weymouth. That might sound arrogant, but its true.

Its shocking sitting outside the pubs on the seafront, all you get is noisy cars chugging out fumes blocking the beautiful view. Shame.

Thats why we should get rid of the Ferry, clear the area of as many cars as possible and get Weymouth completely holiday friendly.

In my view :-) Not a polarised comment monger Cheers.
[quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]Democratic you say. So on your website headline "The polarised comment mongers are out on the Echo site again...step forward and" is democratic is it? Not in my book it's not. But I do appreciate you are trying to improve things, great, and I do wish you luck with that. Just don't agree with this one, and any of the reasons that Jason raised for it. There is no doubt the Peninsula is an area that needs massive improvement, so before you get the wrong idea, I am all for it. However I will fight my corner for anything I don't agree with, especially when very poor ideas are put forward such as Bike Speed Limits, it don't cut it with me, and I will say so. Weymouth's pride and joy is the Beach and the Harbour, they should in my view be made as Pedestrian friendly as possible. Which is not easy I know. But the more pedestrian friendly we get, the more people will come, to Weymouth. That might sound arrogant, but its true. Its shocking sitting outside the pubs on the seafront, all you get is noisy cars chugging out fumes blocking the beautiful view. Shame. Thats why we should get rid of the Ferry, clear the area of as many cars as possible and get Weymouth completely holiday friendly. In my view :-) Not a polarised comment monger Cheers. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

6:13pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Genghis says...

Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
[quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us? Genghis
  • Score: 6

9:19pm Tue 1 Jul 14

louiscox says...

caapprentice wrote:
Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?
Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions...
[quote][p][bold]caapprentice[/bold] wrote: Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?[/p][/quote]Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions... louiscox
  • Score: -5

9:34pm Tue 1 Jul 14

louiscox says...

Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like. louiscox
  • Score: 4

9:45pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

louiscox wrote:
caapprentice wrote:
Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?
Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions...
Seems like a very fair question to me.
[quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]caapprentice[/bold] wrote: Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?[/p][/quote]Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions...[/p][/quote]Seems like a very fair question to me. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -2

9:45pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it.... Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -1

9:58pm Tue 1 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

louiscox wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.
Yes they are safe from the massive train you are correct. It drives at 2 or 3 mph by a qualified coach/bus driver. I think to be perfectly honest you are going to have to do a lot better than the land train and mobility scooters to convince those against.
[quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.[/p][/quote]Yes they are safe from the massive train you are correct. It drives at 2 or 3 mph by a qualified coach/bus driver. I think to be perfectly honest you are going to have to do a lot better than the land train and mobility scooters to convince those against. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 6

10:11pm Tue 1 Jul 14

CoogarUK.com says...

No petition required to allow cyclists to cycle on pavements, as they already appear to do it with impunity even though it is an offence.
No petition required to allow cyclists to cycle on pavements, as they already appear to do it with impunity even though it is an offence. CoogarUK.com
  • Score: 3

1:05am Wed 2 Jul 14

Genghis says...

louiscox wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.
What a completely ridiculous argument. Just because the authorities have allowed some vehicles to encroach on the pavements, then it must be acceptable to let even more on. Yes, the thin edge of the wedge was driven in. Now we see the extension of that with cyclists claiming one more wrong will make it even more right.

There are issues with the Land Train and mobility scooters. But that doesn't make the cyclists argument any more valid.
[quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.[/p][/quote]What a completely ridiculous argument. Just because the authorities have allowed some vehicles to encroach on the pavements, then it must be acceptable to let even more on. Yes, the thin edge of the wedge was driven in. Now we see the extension of that with cyclists claiming one more wrong will make it even more right. There are issues with the Land Train and mobility scooters. But that doesn't make the cyclists argument any more valid. Genghis
  • Score: 4

1:12am Wed 2 Jul 14

Genghis says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads. Genghis
  • Score: 3

6:46am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

annotater wrote:
Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.
You might just as well ask "Why is it okay for drivers to park on the pavement?". A minority of people, whether cyclists or drivers, break the law and everybody gets tarred with the same brush.
[quote][p][bold]annotater[/bold] wrote: Why is it OK for pedal cyclists to use pavements? In the Highway Code a pedal cycle with wheels over 14" in diameter are not allowed on the pavements unless it is a cycle path or bridleway.[/p][/quote]You might just as well ask "Why is it okay for drivers to park on the pavement?". A minority of people, whether cyclists or drivers, break the law and everybody gets tarred with the same brush. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

6:47am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
So when the accident happens direct them to the nearest Lawyer. That will suit Nantes right on the Sea Front.
Following this logic all roads should be closed as accidents happen on them.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: So when the accident happens direct them to the nearest Lawyer. That will suit Nantes right on the Sea Front.[/p][/quote]Following this logic all roads should be closed as accidents happen on them. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

6:50am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
If you put the petition together would you be kind enough to check the spelling and grammar before you post it, thank you.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back[/p][/quote]If you put the petition together would you be kind enough to check the spelling and grammar before you post it, thank you. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

6:54am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

peskykat wrote:
shy talk wrote:
“The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation.

For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster.
Well Said , out of season it is not a problem but I live very close to the seafront and often it is crowded with people !
Who've all walked into town, used the park and ride scheme or what?
[quote][p][bold]peskykat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shy talk[/bold] wrote: “The Highway Code is not law.” Will if you care to read the Highway Code. You will find it contains advice for all users and most case’s backed by enforceable legislation. For example: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 Looking at the comments there is divided opinion as to cyclist using the promenade. Even if a cycle path was laid to separate both parties. People will wander into the cycle path causing frustration to cyclist. The high density of people using the promenade in the summer months and allowing cyclist onto the promenade, in my opinion is a recipe for disaster.[/p][/quote]Well Said , out of season it is not a problem but I live very close to the seafront and often it is crowded with people ![/p][/quote]Who've all walked into town, used the park and ride scheme or what? breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

7:02am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon. breamoreboy
  • Score: -10

7:05am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

CoogarUK.com wrote:
No petition required to allow cyclists to cycle on pavements, as they already appear to do it with impunity even though it is an offence.
Yawn.
[quote][p][bold]CoogarUK.com[/bold] wrote: No petition required to allow cyclists to cycle on pavements, as they already appear to do it with impunity even though it is an offence.[/p][/quote]Yawn. breamoreboy
  • Score: -4

7:10am Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
You are obliged not to park on pavements. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to break speed limits. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to carve up cyclists when they're in the cycle lane? Is this adhered to? Not in Boscombe and Christchurch on Monday when I had to take avoiding action three times inside 20 minutes.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.[/p][/quote]You are obliged not to park on pavements. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to break speed limits. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to carve up cyclists when they're in the cycle lane? Is this adhered to? Not in Boscombe and Christchurch on Monday when I had to take avoiding action three times inside 20 minutes. breamoreboy
  • Score: -2

8:33am Wed 2 Jul 14

louiscox says...

Genghis wrote:
louiscox wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.
What a completely ridiculous argument. Just because the authorities have allowed some vehicles to encroach on the pavements, then it must be acceptable to let even more on. Yes, the thin edge of the wedge was driven in. Now we see the extension of that with cyclists claiming one more wrong will make it even more right.

There are issues with the Land Train and mobility scooters. But that doesn't make the cyclists argument any more valid.
Your argument seem totally ridiculous to me.
Cars on the road are the main issue driving everyone to the pavements. Cyclists and generally anything other than cars do things they ought not to. When they do it's a shocker, everyone stands around slack jawed etc. when someone in a car does it sometimes it results in a death.
Most car drivers are great. Unfortunately the minority will continue to drive the need for safer travel if your basically not in a hard steel shell. Getting a retest every ten years is the only way to cure it. A licence for life has to be a thing of the past...
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.[/p][/quote]What a completely ridiculous argument. Just because the authorities have allowed some vehicles to encroach on the pavements, then it must be acceptable to let even more on. Yes, the thin edge of the wedge was driven in. Now we see the extension of that with cyclists claiming one more wrong will make it even more right. There are issues with the Land Train and mobility scooters. But that doesn't make the cyclists argument any more valid.[/p][/quote]Your argument seem totally ridiculous to me. Cars on the road are the main issue driving everyone to the pavements. Cyclists and generally anything other than cars do things they ought not to. When they do it's a shocker, everyone stands around slack jawed etc. when someone in a car does it sometimes it results in a death. Most car drivers are great. Unfortunately the minority will continue to drive the need for safer travel if your basically not in a hard steel shell. Getting a retest every ten years is the only way to cure it. A licence for life has to be a thing of the past... louiscox
  • Score: -3

12:01pm Wed 2 Jul 14

JamesYoung says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
Funny that, you sound like an Echo moaner too, now.
PeskyKat's comment was perfectly valid and I don't know how you can have construed it as snobby.
Still your suggestion sounds like an excellent idea. I hope the police are there to take full advantage of the revenue raising opportunity.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back[/p][/quote]Funny that, you sound like an Echo moaner too, now. PeskyKat's comment was perfectly valid and I don't know how you can have construed it as snobby. Still your suggestion sounds like an excellent idea. I hope the police are there to take full advantage of the revenue raising opportunity. JamesYoung
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Wed 2 Jul 14

mattwalkden says...

Sadly I fear that the council will only get serious about linking the cycle paths along the Esplanade when someone is knocked over and either killed or seriously injured on the beach road, greenhills or the esplanade itself, they're very busy and drivers still don't take cyclists into serious consideration.
Sadly I fear that the council will only get serious about linking the cycle paths along the Esplanade when someone is knocked over and either killed or seriously injured on the beach road, greenhills or the esplanade itself, they're very busy and drivers still don't take cyclists into serious consideration. mattwalkden
  • Score: 3

12:25pm Wed 2 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
This is not about Cars, Mobility Scooters, Bad Junctions, Seat Belts, Speed Limits, it is about the safety of the people who walk up and down the promenade, and especially the young kids that run about. That's all. All the other stuff is just not relevant.

The question is, Is it safe to introduce Cyclists on the Promenade?

Some obviously say yes, some say no, it would seem as though the council are going to have to chat about this at some point, so they will make the decision, and have to stand by that decision if it goes pair shaped.

Will make a great story when someone does get knocked down though won't it, because it will happen, even Jason knows that.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]This is not about Cars, Mobility Scooters, Bad Junctions, Seat Belts, Speed Limits, it is about the safety of the people who walk up and down the promenade, and especially the young kids that run about. That's all. All the other stuff is just not relevant. The question is, Is it safe to introduce Cyclists on the Promenade? Some obviously say yes, some say no, it would seem as though the council are going to have to chat about this at some point, so they will make the decision, and have to stand by that decision if it goes pair shaped. Will make a great story when someone does get knocked down though won't it, because it will happen, even Jason knows that. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 7

1:57pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

Whilst I am not keen to mix cyclists with pedestrians (many of whom are small children) I do think there is a possible compromise here.

If you divide the Promenade into two parts at the Jubilee clock, I think it is quite possible to include a cycle lane on the Promenade to the east and incorporate a cycle lane into the bus lane and roadway to the west. I would also make west of the clock tower a 20mph zone.

My logic for this is that pedestrians west of the clock tower tend to be 'milling around' or just 'beach watching' rather than walking along the Prom per se (some are I know but a great many are not). It seems impractical to me to expect pedestrians to be constantly on the lookout for cyclists in these conditions. However, this is less true east of the clock tower which tends to be less crowded anyway.
Whilst I am not keen to mix cyclists with pedestrians (many of whom are small children) I do think there is a possible compromise here. If you divide the Promenade into two parts at the Jubilee clock, I think it is quite possible to include a cycle lane on the Promenade to the east and incorporate a cycle lane into the bus lane and roadway to the west. I would also make west of the clock tower a 20mph zone. My logic for this is that pedestrians west of the clock tower tend to be 'milling around' or just 'beach watching' rather than walking along the Prom per se (some are I know but a great many are not). It seems impractical to me to expect pedestrians to be constantly on the lookout for cyclists in these conditions. However, this is less true east of the clock tower which tends to be less crowded anyway. Bob Goulding
  • Score: -1

4:46pm Wed 2 Jul 14

fixbike says...

i am in the cycle trade and i will welcome the seafront opened up BUT : it need's to be lined out and only with within certain times . this would suit more of the moaners too i think! walkers still need to learn about the lines they walk on the side with the big man not the side with the cyclist. i was stoped by a walker before she was tell in me off for cycling on the path i just told her to look down and showed her the picture of a bike i polity said bye and left her red faced
i am in the cycle trade and i will welcome the seafront opened up BUT : it need's to be lined out and only with within certain times . this would suit more of the moaners too i think! walkers still need to learn about the lines they walk on the side with the big man not the side with the cyclist. i was stoped by a walker before she was tell in me off for cycling on the path i just told her to look down and showed her the picture of a bike i polity said bye and left her red faced fixbike
  • Score: -1

5:26pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Genghis says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator. Genghis
  • Score: 7

5:30pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Genghis says...

breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
You are obliged not to park on pavements. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to break speed limits. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to carve up cyclists when they're in the cycle lane? Is this adhered to? Not in Boscombe and Christchurch on Monday when I had to take avoiding action three times inside 20 minutes.
Again the cyclists main argument. Other people break the law, so they should be able to as well. The campaign and petition you should be running is to make the roads safer, not to make the pavements less safe for pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.[/p][/quote]You are obliged not to park on pavements. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to break speed limits. Is this adhered to? You are obliged not to carve up cyclists when they're in the cycle lane? Is this adhered to? Not in Boscombe and Christchurch on Monday when I had to take avoiding action three times inside 20 minutes.[/p][/quote]Again the cyclists main argument. Other people break the law, so they should be able to as well. The campaign and petition you should be running is to make the roads safer, not to make the pavements less safe for pedestrians. Genghis
  • Score: 6

6:50pm Wed 2 Jul 14

blobby96 says...

numbnuts846 wrote:
First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this
look they could not even get the white horse facing the right way, what hope!!!
[quote][p][bold]numbnuts846[/bold] wrote: First of shared pavments dont work. As people walking dont and cant read the signs .. as for the rodwell trail i go the long way as im fed up with dog walkers not having any control over there animals and not picking up the dog poo. Whats this town going to do whwn the ironman lands in september... knowing the council screw it up. There is a massive scope to get money into this town from mass cycling events but i expect nobody will do anything about this[/p][/quote]look they could not even get the white horse facing the right way, what hope!!! blobby96
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Wed 2 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
No I haven't been hit by a few pounds of bike. I have been hit by one ton of lethal weapon. Fortunately for me but unfortunately for society it was only a glancing blow so I lived to spread my opinions on the www.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]No I haven't been hit by a few pounds of bike. I have been hit by one ton of lethal weapon. Fortunately for me but unfortunately for society it was only a glancing blow so I lived to spread my opinions on the www. breamoreboy
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Wed 2 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak.

Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen.

So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public.

Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got.
It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak. Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen. So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public. Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 5

10:26pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak.

Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen.

So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public.

Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got.
I'm afraid you are woefully behind the curve on this issue. It's not if but when.
It works elsewhere in the country with much much busier beaches, and it will work here, and it will happen. Get used the the idea.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak. Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen. So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public. Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are woefully behind the curve on this issue. It's not if but when. It works elsewhere in the country with much much busier beaches, and it will work here, and it will happen. Get used the the idea. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -7

10:32pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -5

10:34pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

louiscox wrote:
caapprentice wrote:
Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?
Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions...
Haha - hilarious.
[quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]caapprentice[/bold] wrote: Why do people need to go along the sea-front on their bikes - aren't there enough cycle ways for them to get to where-ever they need?[/p][/quote]Is this a serious question? Perhaps you should read some of the forum before posting redundant questions...[/p][/quote]Haha - hilarious. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

10:37pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak.

Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen.

So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public.

Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got.
My suggestion was to introduce a 20mph speed limit on the road west of the Jubilee clock junction for all vehicles not just cyclists. I also suggested that cycle lanes be incorporated into the bus lanes and roadways in this zone but not on the Promenade. This as easy to police as any other speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: It is obvious that Jason is just after publicity for his campaign to take over the peninsular. But I think he has made a massive mistake here, because not only is this a poor idea because (lets say) it only has a 50/50 split, his own argument for the idea is very weak. Who is going to be the next person to say a 20 Mph speed limit? How on earth can that be policed. You cannot introduce a law unless you can police it, that's fact. Now you might come up with quite a few laws that are not policed, but is again irreverent. It is this one we are talking about. There is NO CHANCE you can introduce a bicycle speed limit. It is impossible. So please just TRY and forget that one, It will never happen. So why Jason are you trying to gain public support with a 50/50 idea? Do you know what it does? It makes me worry just how good you are at promotion of what is you are really after a multi million pound enterprise. So far not a good start, you have divided your public. Need to rethink Jason. Bikes you might get, Accidents you will get. Divided opinion on your skills, you have got.[/p][/quote]My suggestion was to introduce a 20mph speed limit on the road west of the Jubilee clock junction for all vehicles not just cyclists. I also suggested that cycle lanes be incorporated into the bus lanes and roadways in this zone but not on the Promenade. This as easy to police as any other speed limit. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

10:40pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
louiscox wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.
Yes they are safe from the massive train you are correct. It drives at 2 or 3 mph by a qualified coach/bus driver. I think to be perfectly honest you are going to have to do a lot better than the land train and mobility scooters to convince those against.
There's no need to convince anyone of anything.
If you really think this is not going to happen you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The promenade is a perfectly good place to put a cycle route and it will get one by hook or by crook. Moaning, whinging, bleating on about pedestrian rights which of course every cyclist is already will not make a blind jot of difference...
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]The pedestrians seem to be safe from the massive truck disguised as a train that goes up and down every five minutes. They also seem to be safe from very heavy mobility scooters that seem to do whatever speed they feel like.[/p][/quote]Yes they are safe from the massive train you are correct. It drives at 2 or 3 mph by a qualified coach/bus driver. I think to be perfectly honest you are going to have to do a lot better than the land train and mobility scooters to convince those against.[/p][/quote]There's no need to convince anyone of anything. If you really think this is not going to happen you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The promenade is a perfectly good place to put a cycle route and it will get one by hook or by crook. Moaning, whinging, bleating on about pedestrian rights which of course every cyclist is already will not make a blind jot of difference... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -7

10:52pm Wed 2 Jul 14

Jimmytheone says...

Who told Parkstreet shuffle cycles dont harm pedestrians?? Who is this statisically ?? Is that the same man that said put one foot in a bucket of ice and the other in boiling water and statisically your nether regions will be at ambeint temperature. Cobblers and what about my dog will he be safe ??
Who told Parkstreet shuffle cycles dont harm pedestrians?? Who is this statisically ?? Is that the same man that said put one foot in a bucket of ice and the other in boiling water and statisically your nether regions will be at ambeint temperature. Cobblers and what about my dog will he be safe ?? Jimmytheone
  • Score: 3

5:45am Thu 3 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

"and it will get one by hook or by crook" Now Parkstreetshuffle what are you suggesting here, would love to know.
"and it will get one by hook or by crook" Now Parkstreetshuffle what are you suggesting here, would love to know. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 1

5:47am Thu 3 Jul 14

Genghis says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained? Genghis
  • Score: 5

5:48am Thu 3 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.
Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 0

6:39am Thu 3 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Genghis wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense.
Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists.
Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured.
So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense. Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists. Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured. So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -7

8:39am Thu 3 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense.
Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists.
Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured.
So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?
And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense. Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists. Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured. So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?[/p][/quote]And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

11:10am Thu 3 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.
My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.[/p][/quote]My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work? Bob Goulding
  • Score: 0

11:42am Thu 3 Jul 14

Laughing gnome says...

I find no problem cycling from wyke to preston at any time,whether summer or winter. In fact the only negative part of my frequent road trips seems to be the high speed racing bike nobs who think they have the right to scare the wits out of pedestrians just to better their last recorded travel time !
Tossers.
Keep the Esplanade bike free. There's no need for cycle lane.
I find no problem cycling from wyke to preston at any time,whether summer or winter. In fact the only negative part of my frequent road trips seems to be the high speed racing bike nobs who think they have the right to scare the wits out of pedestrians just to better their last recorded travel time ! Tossers. Keep the Esplanade bike free. There's no need for cycle lane. Laughing gnome
  • Score: 4

1:33pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense.
Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists.
Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured.
So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?
And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.
No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant.
Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes.
Please explain why it does not?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense. Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists. Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured. So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?[/p][/quote]And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.[/p][/quote]No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant. Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes. Please explain why it does not? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

2:00pm Thu 3 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.
My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work?
It would safer, I agree, as it is less populated, but Kids still run around in all directions, it's the bikes they go so fast nowadays, I think we should leave it as it is.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.[/p][/quote]My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work?[/p][/quote]It would safer, I agree, as it is less populated, but Kids still run around in all directions, it's the bikes they go so fast nowadays, I think we should leave it as it is. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 4

2:24pm Thu 3 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense.
Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists.
Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured.
So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?
And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.
No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant.
Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes.
Please explain why it does not?
Explain What? I have just said that statistic has nothing to do with the Esplanade in Weymouth. That's all there is to say. So you think by putting in this one cycle lane it is going to help that statistic then? I am all for cycle lanes, but put them on the road not on the esplanade. Ban the cars would be an even better option, I said that 3 days ago about 50 posts ago!
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense. Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists. Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured. So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?[/p][/quote]And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.[/p][/quote]No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant. Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes. Please explain why it does not?[/p][/quote]Explain What? I have just said that statistic has nothing to do with the Esplanade in Weymouth. That's all there is to say. So you think by putting in this one cycle lane it is going to help that statistic then? I am all for cycle lanes, but put them on the road not on the esplanade. Ban the cars would be an even better option, I said that 3 days ago about 50 posts ago! MrTomSmith
  • Score: 6

2:25pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.
My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work?
It would safer, I agree, as it is less populated, but Kids still run around in all directions, it's the bikes they go so fast nowadays, I think we should leave it as it is.
I don't think you are even remotely close to comprehending how many people feel very strongly about this...
What use is a cycle lane east of the clock exactly?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Yes Bob agree 20mph speed limit roads is no problem, I wasn't debating that one, it was a speed limit on bikes on the esplanade that was suggested that I was saying is impossible to administer.[/p][/quote]My suggestion included prohibiting cycling on the Esplanade west of the Jubilee clock junction but providing a cycle lane on the Esplanade east of the Jubilee clock junction. Don't you think this could work?[/p][/quote]It would safer, I agree, as it is less populated, but Kids still run around in all directions, it's the bikes they go so fast nowadays, I think we should leave it as it is.[/p][/quote]I don't think you are even remotely close to comprehending how many people feel very strongly about this... What use is a cycle lane east of the clock exactly? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

2:33pm Thu 3 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Genghis wrote:
breamoreboy wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Behemoth wrote:
Hi Tom

Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website.

Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea.

Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something.

Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place.

You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good.

Cheers.
From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course.

So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?
If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.
Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.
Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality.
Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road.
The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well.
Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.
Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result.

So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?
I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense.
Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists.
Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured.
So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?
And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.
No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant.
Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes.
Please explain why it does not?
Explain What? I have just said that statistic has nothing to do with the Esplanade in Weymouth. That's all there is to say. So you think by putting in this one cycle lane it is going to help that statistic then? I am all for cycle lanes, but put them on the road not on the esplanade. Ban the cars would be an even better option, I said that 3 days ago about 50 posts ago!
Again - please explain - why does a statistic about child death on the roads have nothing to do with a cycle path on the weymouth Esplanade where there is more than enough room to fit about three paths?. Its a very simple question?

Yes - that is exactly what I think. One cycle lane will prevent a death.
You appear to be missing the absolute point of the argument. The cars are the problem. We want cyclists away from the cars - thats the whole reason for a cycle path.
Do you understand?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Behemoth[/bold] wrote: Hi Tom Baron here. Two things regarding the Weyforward website. Firstly, it's democratic. People can vote for and against the ideas. That's the whole point. Plus anyone can add an idea. Secondly, we don't get anything out of this other than the enjoyment of trying to build something. Additionally, we have no plans for the peninsula. The idea is to develop it in line with what the public want. Having a conversation about that is critical. This is why we created the webpage, alongside a few others, in the first place. You disagree regarding safety, but others think in another way. It's all good. Cheers.[/p][/quote]From the tone of your website relating to this issue, a conversation is not what the cyclists want. It's total surrender to their point of view. Anybody that disagrees is branded as, and I quote from your website, a "polarised comment monger." Not much sign of wanting other people's views there, unless they agree with yours of course. So, I'll risk the name calling and prepare to be labelled a "polarised comment monger." But just one question for you. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians, once your plans to turn all pavements into cycling highways, are forced on us?[/p][/quote]If you were that concerned about the safety of pedestrians you'd get seat belts banned from cars, as the number of pedestrians killed and injured went up when the use of seat belts was made compulsory. I find it staggering that so many people are worried about the impact of a few pounds of cycle with a person, but don't appear too worried about someone getting hit by one ton of lethal weapon.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you haven't had the benefit of being hit, and run down, by a few pounds of cycle with a person on it. I have. It's not an experience I want repeated either. And the cyclist that ran me down on the pavement? Just sped off, no apology, no query as to whether I was injured. Thankfully, a motorist that witnessed it, stopped and helped to patch up the gash in my elbow, but, unfortunately, wasn't able to identify the perpetrator.[/p][/quote]Cycles don't statistically harm pedestrians. Try as you might that is a weak argument. It simply does not reflect reality. Cars very much do harm cyclists, pedestrians and just about anybody that ventures onto the road. The seafront will become a shared use. It works in other places much busier than Weymouth and it will work here just as well. Talk of problems and nay saying will only serve to slow what will eventually come.[/p][/quote]Cyclists don't statistically harm pedestrians. Depends on what statistics you use. According to 2012 statistics, comparing distance travelled to number of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians, 24 per billion km travelled involved cars while 21 per billion km involved cyclists. Not a lot of difference between the two forms of transport. That's statistics for you. There are loads available and people will use them out of context or adapt them to suit the point they are making. So, to you, my injuries were insignificant and meaningless, because the statistics you use say that injuries to pedestrians can be ignored. What your statistics do not account for is the pain, blood, broken bones, or sometimes death that are often the result. So my position remains the same. If cyclists are given access to the pavements along The Esplanade, how is it going to be policed? How is the safety of all users, particularly pedestrians, going to be maintained?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, but there are relevant statistics and irrelevant ones. This figure your talking about doesn't even make sense. Here is a relevant figure - there are 40, 000, 000 car drivers on the roads according to DVLA and there are but a few thousand cyclists. Do we need to say any more about that? Our society is obese and obsessed with the motor car and it's killing us in more ways than one. It's killing our children, 33 dead children in 2012 from cars on the way to school. 33 dead children just going to school. Thousands injured. So tell me about how it's more important that you can go for a Sunday stroll rather than allowing a few hundred cyclists a bit of protection from the hundreds of thousands of cars they will encounter in this area?[/p][/quote]And so allowing cycling on the Esplanade is going to change any of these dramatic statistics are they? Your using these irrelevant figures to try and justify it, and I am afraid it don't work. Genghis is right. We all agree these statistics are terrible, but this debate has nothing to do with them at all. Absolutely nothing. Keep trying the cloud the question with this, does not do your argument any favours. All it does is say you don't really have any good reason to make the esplanade into a more dangerous place to walk? You can't come up with anything, because there is no reason. However we can.[/p][/quote]No this is simply a response that doesn't not take into account any of the made points - it's ignorant. Of course the child deaths on British roads has everything to do with having cycle lanes. Please explain why it does not?[/p][/quote]Explain What? I have just said that statistic has nothing to do with the Esplanade in Weymouth. That's all there is to say. So you think by putting in this one cycle lane it is going to help that statistic then? I am all for cycle lanes, but put them on the road not on the esplanade. Ban the cars would be an even better option, I said that 3 days ago about 50 posts ago![/p][/quote]Again - please explain - why does a statistic about child death on the roads have nothing to do with a cycle path on the weymouth Esplanade where there is more than enough room to fit about three paths?. Its a very simple question? Yes - that is exactly what I think. One cycle lane will prevent a death. You appear to be missing the absolute point of the argument. The cars are the problem. We want cyclists away from the cars - thats the whole reason for a cycle path. Do you understand? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

12:53am Fri 4 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book:
*And as for the motorcar, in urban areas

Ban it.*
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.[/p][/quote]When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book: *And as for the motorcar, in urban areas Ban it.* Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -1

6:21am Fri 4 Jul 14

Genghis says...

Harpya Orkinus wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book:
*And as for the motorcar, in urban areas

Ban it.*
Doesn't change the fact that cycling on the pavement is illegal. If you have to use the pavement, then dismount and push your bike.
[quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.[/p][/quote]When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book: *And as for the motorcar, in urban areas Ban it.*[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that cycling on the pavement is illegal. If you have to use the pavement, then dismount and push your bike. Genghis
  • Score: 4

7:54am Fri 4 Jul 14

it's me says...

I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did. it's me
  • Score: 4

7:57am Fri 4 Jul 14

it's me says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
Very grown up attitude
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why because the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back[/p][/quote]Very grown up attitude it's me
  • Score: 3

8:19am Fri 4 Jul 14

babaswim says...

I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.
I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed. babaswim
  • Score: 1

8:52am Fri 4 Jul 14

Brinboy says...

babaswim wrote:
I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.
Get off & walk then.
[quote][p][bold]babaswim[/bold] wrote: I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.[/p][/quote]Get off & walk then. Brinboy
  • Score: 3

9:37am Fri 4 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

it's me wrote:
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
Post like this make me extremely angry.
In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers.
If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria.
Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident.
They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk.
I pity your neighbours.
[quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.[/p][/quote]Post like this make me extremely angry. In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers. If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria. Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident. They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk. I pity your neighbours. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -2

9:42am Fri 4 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
Genghis wrote:
Harpya Orkinus wrote:
I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !!
Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right.
My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....
You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.
When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book:
*And as for the motorcar, in urban areas

Ban it.*
Doesn't change the fact that cycling on the pavement is illegal. If you have to use the pavement, then dismount and push your bike.
Whats right is what society does, not what the rule book says. The rule book comes after the fact - not before. Society acts in an organic fashion according to its needs. If you make the roads too dangerous to cycle on because of the selfish few car drivers unfortunately you face humans doing what humans do naturally. Self preservation.
You want the cyclists off the pavement do something about their predicament - like supporting the action to have a cycle path on the seafront.
[quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Genghis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harpya Orkinus[/bold] wrote: I recall a cop in a 'jam sandwich' squad car, back in the 70s, stopping and calling across the road to us as we cycled back to Bournemouth from Studland Bay to get off the sidewalk, and me calling back that we'd be happy to use the road if it weren't for the fact that every other motorist seemed determined to kill us. I believe this is a coward/bully thing. Whenever we cycled from Boscombe to Christchurch, there was a turn-off to the right to the Wick Ferry area, which motorists were ADAMANT that cyclists should not be permitted to take. One day, purely as a social experiment, we cycled there with one of us carrying an M-16 assault rifle slung across their back. The difference in attitude from car-drivers was nothing short of jaw-dropping - courteous gestures inviting us to go whither we would, vehicles giving us right of way, no anger or impatience manifested whatsoever !! H'mm..interesting !! Conversely, in Weymouth, I am obliged to use sidewalks in order to pick up a few things from the Asda, following a day's birdwatching. Forget about using Westwey Road to get there - it's a nightmare for cyclists, in my view, and if approaching the store along Newstead Road, we again have this situation of motorists disliking a cyclist wanting to make a right. My current ride is a Pashley Princess, with handlebar basket and 5-speed Sturmey-Archer hub-gears - a HIGHLY inefficient drive system, wherein even a slight rise takes considerable effort to negotiate, so I'm looking, ideally, for flat and level ground in order to cycle from Radipole Lake to Lodmoor - for which the Greenhill promenade (haunted, of course, by that lawbreaking and ridiculous-looking 'Land' Train) is perfectly designed. In the 1960s, when the road between St John's kirk and Greenhill Garage was two-way, cycling up and over Greenhill was not the problem it is today, where one has to travel around two sides of the big, triangular island, then, somehow, manage to hang a left onto the hump that is Greenhill. I'm sure many cyclists find this maneuver somewhat problematical, but on MY current wheels, it is even more so. This is an area that needs considerable thought in order to overcome the difficulties of both geography and traffic-routeing - a tough job, but SOMEONE has to do it....[/p][/quote]You are not obliged to use the pavements> You are obliged to use your bicycle on the roads.[/p][/quote]When I used the term *obliged to use the sidewalk, rather than Westwey Road*, I thought it unnecessary to expand the statement by adding: *unless one is prepared to risk serious injury or death*, which is the reality of the situation when cyclists are forced to mix it with BIG, lethal vehicles. Perhaps the intelligent Richard Ballantine, in his 1972/75 volume: *Richard's Bicycle Book*, had it right when he said, in these last ten words in the book: *And as for the motorcar, in urban areas Ban it.*[/p][/quote]Doesn't change the fact that cycling on the pavement is illegal. If you have to use the pavement, then dismount and push your bike.[/p][/quote]Whats right is what society does, not what the rule book says. The rule book comes after the fact - not before. Society acts in an organic fashion according to its needs. If you make the roads too dangerous to cycle on because of the selfish few car drivers unfortunately you face humans doing what humans do naturally. Self preservation. You want the cyclists off the pavement do something about their predicament - like supporting the action to have a cycle path on the seafront. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -3

9:48am Fri 4 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Brinboy wrote:
babaswim wrote:
I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.
Get off & walk then.
Are you congenitally retarded? or were you never loved by your parents?
[quote][p][bold]Brinboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babaswim[/bold] wrote: I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.[/p][/quote]Get off & walk then.[/p][/quote]Are you congenitally retarded? or were you never loved by your parents? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -5

1:59pm Fri 4 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Brinboy wrote:
babaswim wrote:
I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.
Get off & walk then.
Are you congenitally retarded? or were you never loved by your parents?
Another one of Jason's throw away lines was that the Echo comments are abusive, which I don't deny, as elloello usually manages about one a day. Strange he is supporter of his idea.

And low and behold another supporter of this is also abusive. Just shows you never trust those away lines! What do you think Jason you have gone very quiet.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brinboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]babaswim[/bold] wrote: I fully support altering the bye law to allow cycling from the 'rocks' at slush gardens to the old pier band stand. I cycle that route with my 3 year old daughter on a child seat on the rear of my bike and I hate once we get to the rocks having to go onto a busy A road with lorries and buses passing inches from my daughter sometimes at considerable speed.[/p][/quote]Get off & walk then.[/p][/quote]Are you congenitally retarded? or were you never loved by your parents?[/p][/quote]Another one of Jason's throw away lines was that the Echo comments are abusive, which I don't deny, as elloello usually manages about one a day. Strange he is supporter of his idea. And low and behold another supporter of this is also abusive. Just shows you never trust those away lines! What do you think Jason you have gone very quiet. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

3:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
it's me wrote:
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
Post like this make me extremely angry.
In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers.
If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria.
Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident.
They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk.
I pity your neighbours.
We are not talking about 'Rules' here we are talking about 'Laws'. It is the Law that all road users abide by the various road traffic acts enacted by our democratically elected representatives. Although not all of the Laws are applicable to cyclists, they are not exempt from the others simply because their mode of transport is not motorised (for example, stopping at red lights). The Law is the Law and, if we believe it for us to decide whether it is relevant or not depending on how we feel at the time, all we are left with is anarchy.

The Law clearly states that cycling on pavements is illegal unless on a designated cycle track. All cyclists should undergo road-craft training before attempting to use busy main roads. The Highway Code is there to help with this and it is free of charge and available on-line.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.[/p][/quote]Post like this make me extremely angry. In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers. If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria. Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident. They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk. I pity your neighbours.[/p][/quote]We are not talking about 'Rules' here we are talking about 'Laws'. It is the Law that all road users abide by the various road traffic acts enacted by our democratically elected representatives. Although not all of the Laws are applicable to cyclists, they are not exempt from the others simply because their mode of transport is not motorised (for example, stopping at red lights). The Law is the Law and, if we believe it for us to decide whether it is relevant or not depending on how we feel at the time, all we are left with is anarchy. The Law clearly states that cycling on pavements is illegal unless on a designated cycle track. All cyclists should undergo road-craft training before attempting to use busy main roads. The Highway Code is there to help with this and it is free of charge and available on-line. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Please - don't make me laugh.
In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights.
Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone.
Do you want me to go on?
Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron.
As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.
Please - don't make me laugh. In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights. Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone. Do you want me to go on? Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron. As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -5

4:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Bikes are the most environmentally-frie
ndly form of transportation we have, that still permit travelling from A to B at rather more than 4 mph. They will, I fancy, still be in use after the last automobile's gas tank has run dry, and no doubt will be the final machine used by our species after 99.99% of us have been eliminated by the pandemic we've been asking for ever since our infestation of the planet passed the ONE billion mark. Indeed, if our governments had not shirked their responsibilities re Population Control & Eugeniks, with Euthanasia info. available to all on request, we would not now be discussing these transportation problems, since, like all OTHER problems, they stem from there being TOO MANY PEOPLE - the majority of whom are FAR too obtuse to be able to see it - however plain it may be to those of us who are not in a zombie-like trance !! The evidence is crystal clear - I cycled to school in the 1950s from Beaumont Avenue to the other side of town, with never a mishap. NOW, with goodness only knows how many times more cars on the roads, you're literally taking your life in your hands. Another recent item in the Echo has detailed the many cases of totally irresponsible driving currently going on whilst reading the paper, using a cellphone, applying makeup, having breakfast or smoking funny cigarettes - all contemporary phenomena which virtually never happened a few decades ago, when each generation took its responsibility to pass its wisdom on to the next. True, we didn't have the modern curse of cellphones back then, but even if we had, I'm sure they would have been used more sensibly, and switched off before ignition was switched on !!
Bikes are the most environmentally-frie ndly form of transportation we have, that still permit travelling from A to B at rather more than 4 mph. They will, I fancy, still be in use after the last automobile's gas tank has run dry, and no doubt will be the final machine used by our species after 99.99% of us have been eliminated by the pandemic we've been asking for ever since our infestation of the planet passed the ONE billion mark. Indeed, if our governments had not shirked their responsibilities re Population Control & Eugeniks, with Euthanasia info. available to all on request, we would not now be discussing these transportation problems, since, like all OTHER problems, they stem from there being TOO MANY PEOPLE - the majority of whom are FAR too obtuse to be able to see it - however plain it may be to those of us who are not in a zombie-like trance !! The evidence is crystal clear - I cycled to school in the 1950s from Beaumont Avenue to the other side of town, with never a mishap. NOW, with goodness only knows how many times more cars on the roads, you're literally taking your life in your hands. Another recent item in the Echo has detailed the many cases of totally irresponsible driving currently going on whilst reading the paper, using a cellphone, applying makeup, having breakfast or smoking funny cigarettes - all contemporary phenomena which virtually never happened a few decades ago, when each generation took its responsibility to pass its wisdom on to the next. True, we didn't have the modern curse of cellphones back then, but even if we had, I'm sure they would have been used more sensibly, and switched off before ignition was switched on !! Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: -1

8:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

it's me says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
it's me wrote:
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
Post like this make me extremely angry.
In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers.
If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria.
Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident.
They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk.
I pity your neighbours.
Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.[/p][/quote]Post like this make me extremely angry. In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers. If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria. Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident. They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk. I pity your neighbours.[/p][/quote]Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit it's me
  • Score: 2

10:13am Sat 5 Jul 14

JackJohnson says...

elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
Cyclists - the New Taliban.
[quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back[/p][/quote]Cyclists - the New Taliban. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

10:42am Sat 5 Jul 14

rjimmer says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
How about a petition 'against' cycling in pedestrian areas?
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]How about a petition 'against' cycling in pedestrian areas? rjimmer
  • Score: 5

2:36pm Sat 5 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

it's me wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
it's me wrote:
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
Post like this make me extremely angry.
In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers.
If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria.
Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident.
They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk.
I pity your neighbours.
Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit
My Guess is your in the Duke of Albany. There you are a bit of free promotion for you.
[quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.[/p][/quote]Post like this make me extremely angry. In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers. If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria. Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident. They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk. I pity your neighbours.[/p][/quote]Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit[/p][/quote]My Guess is your in the Duke of Albany. There you are a bit of free promotion for you. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 1

4:17pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Bob Goulding says...

Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Please - don't make me laugh.
In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights.
Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone.
Do you want me to go on?
Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron.
As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.
What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact.
[quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Please - don't make me laugh. In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights. Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone. Do you want me to go on? Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron. As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact. Bob Goulding
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Seems to me that walkers dislike cyclists because they go too fast, and four-wheelers don't like them because they go too slow !! Hence the need for cycleways..
If, as a nation, we had more sense than in fact we DO, then we'd probably learn to live with cycling in town & country the way those folks over there on the mainland seem to have managed it !!
Seems to me that walkers dislike cyclists because they go too fast, and four-wheelers don't like them because they go too slow !! Hence the need for cycleways.. If, as a nation, we had more sense than in fact we DO, then we'd probably learn to live with cycling in town & country the way those folks over there on the mainland seem to have managed it !! Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 2

2:40pm Sun 6 Jul 14

mark@greenhill says...

A shared path will eventually come to weymouth esplanade.
It will of course be like so many things in this town, about 25 years after the rest of the planet gets them.
The "keep Weymouth in the dark ages brigade" are really showing their form on this debate.
A shared path will eventually come to weymouth esplanade. It will of course be like so many things in this town, about 25 years after the rest of the planet gets them. The "keep Weymouth in the dark ages brigade" are really showing their form on this debate. mark@greenhill
  • Score: 3

8:56pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Please - don't make me laugh.
In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights.
Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone.
Do you want me to go on?
Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron.
As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.
What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact.
Good answer mate.
Did you work it out between putting down your copy of the Sun and picking up your pint of Stella?
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Please - don't make me laugh. In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights. Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone. Do you want me to go on? Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron. As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact.[/p][/quote]Good answer mate. Did you work it out between putting down your copy of the Sun and picking up your pint of Stella? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 0

8:59pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

JackJohnson wrote:
elloello1980 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments?

Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back
Cyclists - the New Taliban.
Selfish residents of Weymouth that can't share anything - the new Nazis...
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elloello1980[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]Why becuase the Echo moaners have made a few comments? Stuff the petition, let's get a cycle protest going. hundreds of cyclists, from the pavilion to Oasis café and back[/p][/quote]Cyclists - the New Taliban.[/p][/quote]Selfish residents of Weymouth that can't share anything - the new Nazis... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -1

9:00pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

rjimmer wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Not that popular an idea then is it.
How about a petition 'against' cycling in pedestrian areas?
How about moving to Hampshire or Surrey? sounds like you'd really fit in...
[quote][p][bold]rjimmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Not that popular an idea then is it.[/p][/quote]How about a petition 'against' cycling in pedestrian areas?[/p][/quote]How about moving to Hampshire or Surrey? sounds like you'd really fit in... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -1

9:09pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

it's me wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
it's me wrote:
I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.
Post like this make me extremely angry.
In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers.
If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria.
Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident.
They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk.
I pity your neighbours.
Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit
Sober up? thats just bizarre. Do you have problems expressing what you mean? Do you sometimes have a person that helps you with grown up things like writing letters?
[quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]it's me[/bold] wrote: I was always under the impression a bicycle was a form of vehicle, and like other vehicles should be driven on the highway and if you are incapable or have a fear of other traffic on the same highway sell the vehicle. Riding a cycle on the pavement is a recipe for accidents and as cycles carry no form of insurance they are putting pedestrians at risk.I do believe every form of vehicle should by law carry insurance including disability chariots often seen trundling down the centre of many at road in Dorchester. Many times I have been waiting at traffic lights on red in my fully legal fit for the road car, when a cycle has cut in front of the queue jumped into the pavement and rode through the red light. Only last week I was indicating to turn left when in my mirror a cyclist was coming up my left hand side at speed tho overtake before I made the manoeuvre only tho be given the middle finger when I sounded the horn. Also I do believe as well as insurance being a legal requirement then so should some form of M.O.T.on the condition and road and pavement worthiness of the cycle. Where is the audible warning sound on many bikes (apart from profanities and hand signals,) where are the lights in the dark hours. When I was younger these were requirements and if a policeman saw you without these you had to dismount and walk to your destination with the policeman keeping an eye on you to make sure you did.[/p][/quote]Post like this make me extremely angry. In the first instance did were you born with an ingrained sense of blindly following rules? Rules are there for the benefit of society and are subject to change and being question by the right of any citizen because we live in a democratic country. They are not there is incarcerate and enslave the citizens for the benefit of the rule makers. If you want to live by some kind of totalitarian state - please move to Libya or Syria. Secondly - do you have absolutely no empathy for your 1. fellow human, 2. fellow citizen. 3. Weymouth resident. They are not robots and this is not Orwells 1984. Your statement is so ridiculously short sighted I wonder if you are actually a magistrate or a judge, as only they are the kind of people that make statements like that. In the real world its all grey, and 'rules' are there to fall back on. Meanwhile its a case trying to ensure that everybody has at least chance of a reasonable life. Forcing parents with children, children, teenagers with no road experience onto the roads where they face a very clear and present danger is the type of thoughtless action of self serving officious pen pushers that experience life from a desk. I pity your neighbours.[/p][/quote]Rules are rules you're a cyclist then sober up get out a bit[/p][/quote]Sober up? thats just bizarre. Do you have problems expressing what you mean? Do you sometimes have a person that helps you with grown up things like writing letters? Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 1

9:19pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Im guessing that the people dead set against this cyclepath are not long term residents of weymouth, but people that have either retired here, bought a second home or have been moved here by the council. Either which way they have absolutely no business sticking their oar into a matter thats nothing to do with them.
I cannot believe that any long term resident of weymouth would be so selfish and short-sighted as to see something that is quite clearly of great benefit to the community derailed.
Im guessing that the people dead set against this cyclepath are not long term residents of weymouth, but people that have either retired here, bought a second home or have been moved here by the council. Either which way they have absolutely no business sticking their oar into a matter thats nothing to do with them. I cannot believe that any long term resident of weymouth would be so selfish and short-sighted as to see something that is quite clearly of great benefit to the community derailed. Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: 0

10:15am Mon 7 Jul 14

it's me says...

Bob Goulding wrote:
Parkstreetshufle wrote:
Please - don't make me laugh.
In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights.
Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone.
Do you want me to go on?
Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron.
As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.
What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact.
Quite right why would any motorist consciously want to damage his vehicle on a cyclist. I have been driving in 20/30 mph limits and been overtaken on the inside by cyclists is this responsible riding and is it responsible for cyclists to ride two or three abreast on roads as an example the road from Loders garage and out to the Sun Inn, charminster when there is a cycle lane, mostly cycling clubs are guilty of this.
[quote][p][bold]Bob Goulding[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parkstreetshufle[/bold] wrote: Please - don't make me laugh. In the first instance - I can assume you that whilst driving my car alone - alone, I see more transgression of the 'law' by motorists in a five minute journey than most cyclist commit in a lifetime so don't bleat on about cyclist crossing red lights. Cyclists don't talk on their mobiles whilst driving. Cyclists don't pull across roundabouts whilst talking to people in the back. Cyclists don't open their doors without think oh I might kill someone coming down the road. Cyclists don't get drunk because they feel that life owes them something, then go out and kill someone. Do you want me to go on? Do you actually drive a car I wonder? because you statement seems to be someone thats either a non driver or a moron. As I quoted earlier - there are 40,000,000 car drivers in this country, and tens of thousands of cyclists. Cars outnumber cyclists on massive, massive scale. Cyclists are not the problem, ignorant dangerous car drivers are.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish. You are either blind , stupid or both in which case you should definitely not be driving. You clearly have no concept of reality or simply choose to ignore the facts. I am a driver with more than 600,000 miles experience and nothing I have seen remotely agrees with your assertions. Most cyclists habitually ignore the law and that is a fact.[/p][/quote]Quite right why would any motorist consciously want to damage his vehicle on a cyclist. I have been driving in 20/30 mph limits and been overtaken on the inside by cyclists is this responsible riding and is it responsible for cyclists to ride two or three abreast on roads as an example the road from Loders garage and out to the Sun Inn, charminster when there is a cycle lane, mostly cycling clubs are guilty of this. it's me
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Mon 7 Jul 14

JACKC says...

...who's got the petition against cycling along the prom - for me and many others to sign then?
...who's got the petition against cycling along the prom - for me and many others to sign then? JACKC
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

Given the degree of anti-cycling bias shown in the voting on this thread, I am reminded of what my friend of the 1970s observed: 'There is no such thing as a pedestrian - a pedestrian is just a motorist who has temporarily gotten out of his tin box!!' Hmm, yes - maybe not the ENTIRE answer, since I'm fairly sure that many of the 'pedestrians' with whom angry exchanges are necessitated when using the Westham subway cycleway, and that from the bridge to the Swannery carpark, are hard-pressed to keep themselves in footwear - let alone investing in anything with that new-fangled invention, the wheel....
Given the degree of anti-cycling bias shown in the voting on this thread, I am reminded of what my friend of the 1970s observed: 'There is no such thing as a pedestrian - a pedestrian is just a motorist who has temporarily gotten out of his tin box!!' Hmm, yes - maybe not the ENTIRE answer, since I'm fairly sure that many of the 'pedestrians' with whom angry exchanges are necessitated when using the Westham subway cycleway, and that from the bridge to the Swannery carpark, are hard-pressed to keep themselves in footwear - let alone investing in anything with that new-fangled invention, the wheel.... Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree