Dear Customers & Friends,

Here's wishing you all the very best for the festive period, followed by what I
hope is an enjoyable and fruitful new year. If it's not visible below this
message - Please click  on the following link to see our christmas card -
http://www.southcoastbikes.co.uk/images/Xmas09_SCB.jpg

2009 was quite a year here in the workshop - We serviced more bikes than ever
before, had a great 'free bells and breakfast' promotional weekend and I even
appeared on national TV!

Thank you all for your continuing custom and support - we've got big plans
underway for 2010 and look forward to being of service to you wherever we can.

We will be available for any bike-related needs on the 29th, 30th and 31st of
December and then again from the 4th of January.

Peace, grease and goodwill.

Paul.

Paul Topham
www.specialbike.co.uk
www.southcoastbikes.co.uk
(01273) 202124 - Anytime

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Scrapping Brighton and Hove bike lane could cost council Ł1.5 million

9:08am Sunday 20th December 2009

Print
Email
Share
Comments(36)
By Tim Ridgway »

Up to Ł1.5 million could have to be handed back to the Government if
officials dump plans for a three-mile bike lane.

Brighton and Hove was one of the first places designated as a Cycling
Demonstration Town by the Government and has been given Ł3 million to
encourage bike use since 2005.

But there are fears the status could be lost if Brighton and Hove
City Council backtracks on an agreement to construct the cycle path
in Old Shoreham Road.

Gill Mitchell, the leader of the Labour group on the council, raised
the concerns as the local authority stalled on revealing the results
of the public consultation on the scheme.

Consultation on the scheme, which would see a designated path built
between Portslade and Seven Dials in Brighton, ended in October.

When plans were revealed cycling campaigners criticised the scheme as
“next to useless” because it featured gaps they said were dangerous
for inexperienced riders.


YOUR SAY

YourArgus


mark by the sea, hove says...
9:46am Sun 20 Dec 09

road is to narrow, has to many junctions, and would be a death trap
for all, the cycle lane on seafront is about the best the council can
come up with, instead of looking to get awards for something, why not
concentrate on educating, drivers and cyclists to better awareness of
each other, or in the case of cyclists the highway code.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Christophe Hawtree, Hove says...
9:46am Sun 20 Dec 09

The Council simply does not take cyclists seriously.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
9:55am Sun 20 Dec 09

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
The Council simply does not take cyclists seriously.
And neither will I, all the time I see people riding bikes in the
dark, wearing black, without a light to be seen.
Or as above, but coming the wrong way down a one way street (St
James' St 2 days ago).
Or as above, but going through a red light (Sainsbury's gyratory,
Lewes Rd).
All in the last 4 days - in this weather.
Some cyclists must have a death wish.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Whitedot, says...
10:01am Sun 20 Dec 09

mark by the sea wrote:
road is to narrow, has to many junctions, and would be a death trap
for all, the cycle lane on seafront is about the best the council can
come up with, instead of looking to get awards for something, why not
concentrate on educating, drivers and cyclists to better awareness of
each other, or in the case of cyclists the highway code.
How about educating posters in the correct use of the word 'to' as
against 'too' and punctuation lessons while we're at it.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Dave At Home, Brighton says...
10:03am Sun 20 Dec 09

Somehow I don't find this story news worthy. WE the residents of B&H
know exactly what is going on and what should be done but the council
carry on and do the things that still annoy us. I don't suppose this
is the last thing to come to light either. I am waiting for the
report on the A259 bus lane next and what a waste of money THAT has
been. Then we will have other bus only lanes that have clogged up the
City and made life so difficult for residents and visitors alike.

I think the next election should see people's people take control of
the City and let's put Brighton and surrounding areas firmly on the
map as a shining example of how a City beside the sea should be,
there is no reason why Brighton should not be like Nice or St.
Tropez, we have the facilities and more importantly we have the
people willing to make it so.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Living in the real world, Brighton says...
10:08am Sun 20 Dec 09

Christophe Hawtree wrote:
The Council simply does not take cyclists seriously.
When they go through Red lights, squeze past knocking your mirror,
zig-zagging through cars, undertaking, riding on the pavement,not
using the cycle lanes already provided, not using lights at night or
not having a steady red light at the rear, instead opting for an
illigal flashing one, riding two abreast.
No I am not a car driving cyclist hater just observant and often
enjoy riding a bike ...legally but never in some of the stupid cycle
lanes put in for no reason other than they had our cash to
waste ....again



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Fercri Sakes, Hove says...
10:16am Sun 20 Dec 09

I really wanted this to work and I don't see why this would be 'next
to useless' due to a few bottlenecks.

At many points on that road there is plenty of room for a cycle lane.
Plus it connects with a few existing bike lanes giving a safe cycle
network around Hove.

And for every moaner on here that talks about cyclists going through
red lights, lacking visibility and going the wrong way down streets
can you please understand that you're refering to human nature. There
is exacly the same percentage of car drivers who don't indicate,
speed, use their mobile etc.. It's called 'belligerence' and that's
around 20% of ALL people.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Fight Back, Hove says...
10:19am Sun 20 Dec 09

So let me get this right, the council ( either present or former )
signed up to a scheme to that gave the city money IF we built a cycle
path along the Old Shoreham Road BUT no public consultation had taken
place when we signed up ? That questions either the intelligence of
the council or the validity of any public consultation ( i.e. they
would go ahead whatever the result as it's just a tick boxing
process ). Either Mears or Mitchell should hang their head in
shame !!!!!! It clearly shows that we have been and still are being
run by a bunch of idiots with no idea of money management or risk
mitigation.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Old Dog, Falmer says...
11:15am Sun 20 Dec 09

Not much point in bike lanes in Brighton seeing as most cyclists
treat the main roads as bike lanes, ignoring one ways and traffic
lights and assuming they have precedence over everything else on the
road!



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Big Nasty, says...
11:16am Sun 20 Dec 09

Living in the real world wrote:
Christophe Hawtree wrote:
The Council simply does not take cyclists seriously.
When they go through Red lights, squeze past knocking your mirror,
zig-zagging through cars, undertaking, riding on the pavement,not
using the cycle lanes already provided, not using lights at night or
not having a steady red light at the rear, instead opting for an
illigal flashing one, riding two abreast.
No I am not a car driving cyclist hater just observant and often
enjoy riding a bike ...legally but never in some of the stupid cycle
lanes put in for no reason other than they had our cash to
waste ....again
Before you quote the law I suggest you learn it!, cyclists are
allowed to ride no more than two abreast, and the law regarding
flashing rear lights was amended some time ago to fall in line with
European law, and finally,
on 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed
penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a
footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new
legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be
used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others.
At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating
that:

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

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

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

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the
pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists
who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the
traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing
so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used
with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to
anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier
of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


TheInsider, Brighton says...
11:18am Sun 20 Dec 09

Why build new cycle lanes when as soon as they are created they are
rendered useless by motorists parking in them.
The Lewes Road lane is an example of this.
Pointless and the council does nothing to police the illegal parking,
despite numerous complaints from cyclists and the drivers who get
stuck in jams the illegal parking causes.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


mark j, Hove says...
11:42am Sun 20 Dec 09

Why not a cycle lane between all the libraries? That would be used by
thousands every day, and keep that very odd man Hawtree from moaning
on and on about it.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


voiceofthescoombe, brighton says...
11:49am Sun 20 Dec 09

lewis road cycle lane works until it hits the bit where motorists
park in it particularly the bit by the traffic lights near the Drs
surgery.
Certain Business owners appear to think its there personal car park.
Which even without the cycle lane its double yellow lines would be a
pain as there is a bus stop there as well.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
12:14pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Fercri Sakes wrote:
I really wanted this to work and I don't see why this would be 'next
to useless' due to a few bottlenecks. At many points on that road
there is plenty of room for a cycle lane. Plus it connects with a few
existing bike lanes giving a safe cycle network around Hove. And for
every moaner on here that talks about cyclists going through red
lights, lacking visibility and going the wrong way down streets can
you please understand that you're refering to human nature. There is
exacly the same percentage of car drivers who don't indicate, speed,
use their mobile etc.. It's called 'belligerence' and that's around
20% of ALL people.
Wrong. I challenge you to find 20% of motorists driving around in
black cars in the dark without any lights on.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Living in the real world, Brighton says...
12:45pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Good news that cyclists are not breaking the law with the flashing
lights now, did not know that.
Allowing a PCSO to issue a penalty notice when in his opinion someone
has broken the law with no other proof is giving him the same power
as a Police Officer, the one thing they said would never happen when
these untrained uniformed (and how close do you have to look now to
see a difference) vigilanties where introduced on the cheap to save
money.
The headline is still wrong as the works must be costing more that
the Ł1.5m so in fact cancelling them WILL SAVE the Brighton and Hove
tax payer



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


cing, brighton says...
1:12pm Sun 20 Dec 09

I'm sure there are many, like me, who would love to cycle more - and
let their kids cycle, - but don't feel safe enough on our roads.
It's off-road cycle lanes that are needed, and lanes that don't
suddenly dump you in the middle of a busy junction.
I think we need more shared pavements with pedestrians for those
cyclists who want them, whilst the fast confident cyclists could join
the traffic on the roads, as they often do now.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
1:25pm Sun 20 Dec 09

cing wrote:
I'm sure there are many, like me, who would love to cycle more - and
let their kids cycle, - but don't feel safe enough on our roads. It's
off-road cycle lanes that are needed, and lanes that don't suddenly
dump you in the middle of a busy junction. I think we need more
shared pavements with pedestrians for those cyclists who want them,
whilst the fast confident cyclists could join the traffic on the
roads, as they often do now.
Absolutely right. Cyclists need the same system they have in place in
the Netherlands, where the cycle paths are not part of the actual road.
But apart from along the seafront it's pretty much impossible to do
this retrospectively.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


kkj, Brighton says...
2:21pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Whitedot wrote:
mark by the sea wrote: road is to narrow, has to many junctions, and
would be a death trap for all, the cycle lane on seafront is about
the best the council can come up with, instead of looking to get
awards for something, why not concentrate on educating, drivers and
cyclists to better awareness of each other, or in the case of
cyclists the highway code.
How about educating posters in the correct use of the word 'to' as
against 'too' and punctuation lessons while we're at it.
Punctuation lessons... would that include the correct use of the
question mark?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


wardi, Yorkshire says...
2:23pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Surely the Old Shoreham Road is far too dangerous for a cycle lane.
Did they not think about that before taking the money??? Obviously
not! That would have been sensible!



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


ICantThinkOfAName, LANCING says...
2:28pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Regarding the cycle lanes that are used as car parking spaces, would
it not be possible to sustitute a line of kerb stones for the
existing white lines as a physical barrier?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Granny, Brighton says...
2:31pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Voice of Unreason never said a truer word. Every day you can be
sitting in your ar at red traffic lights and count the number of
cyclists who blatantly ignore them. And who are the first ones to be
blamed if they are involved in an acident - the motorist! If they
stuck to the rules of the Highway Code then there would be no need
for cycle lanes anyway.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


cookie_brighton, brighton says...
3:08pm Sun 20 Dec 09

granny yes ...the highway code. whyis is most cyclists can blatently
ignore this.......most have possibly not read the highway code.when i
was young we had to take a cycling proficiency test before being
allowed onto the roads on a bicycle. what angers me is .....if the
cyclists are riding on the footpath because they feel it is too
dangerous to be on the road where are the pedestrians going to go? on
the roads ? there has been many occasions i have to step into the
road to get out of the way on cyclists on the footpath.bicycles
belong on the road........pedestri
ans on the footpath .if cyclists are scared to ride their cycle on
the road ...,.,..simple dont use your cycle.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


cing, brighton says...
3:45pm Sun 20 Dec 09

cookie_brighton wrote:
granny yes ...the highway code. whyis is most cyclists can blatently
ignore this.......most have possibly not read the highway code.when i
was young we had to take a cycling proficiency test before being
allowed onto the roads on a bicycle. what angers me is .....if the
cyclists are riding on the footpath because they feel it is too
dangerous to be on the road where are the pedestrians going to go? on
the roads ? there has been many occasions i have to step into the
road to get out of the way on cyclists on the footpath.bicycles
belong on the road........pedestri

ans on the footpath .if cyclists are scared to ride their cycle on
the road ...,.,..simple dont use your cycle.
Joint pedestrian and cycle paths can work extremely well. All it
needs is for cyclists to give way to pedestrians at all times and for
all cyclists in a hurry to use the road.
Banning cyclists is not a sensible or viable answer.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


yorkie44, Woodingdean says...
3:53pm Sun 20 Dec 09

The council has demonstrated that cycling increases when cyclists are
allowed the break the law and you can do anything you want by taking
money from the public and calling tax. The sensible amoungst us
already knew this so perhaps we can drop the idea.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


DougM, Brighton says...
3:58pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but this is because
card rivers do not respects the law, and because those roads are
designed stupidly.
Cycle lanes on the pavement are good for 'recreational' cyclists such
as children.
However commuters who cycle and those who cycle for exercise should
have as much right to be on the road as any other form of transport
(to all you inbred ***-for-brains out there, we all pay for the roads
through council tax).
Or would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph do so
on a pavement with pedestrians?
Many people on here moan that traffic moves at no more than 20mph, so
why should those on cycles not share the road when they are at the
same speed?
Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road.
A government report this week found that of all accidents involving
cycles and cars, 80% of them were caused by reckless car driving.
Annual retests and exorbitant insurance for the lazy useless car-
driving halfwits and the country will be a safer place.
Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a large proportion of our
council tax bills goes towards subsidising the fat lazy sods.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


stan bailey, brighton says...
5:36pm Sun 20 Dec 09

cookie_brighton wrote:
granny yes ...the highway code. whyis is most cyclists can blatently
ignore this.......most have possibly not read the highway code.when i
was young we had to take a cycling proficiency test before being
allowed onto the roads on a bicycle. what angers me is .....if the
cyclists are riding on the footpath because they feel it is too
dangerous to be on the road where are the pedestrians going to go? on
the roads ? there has been many occasions i have to step into the
road to get out of the way on cyclists on the footpath.bicycles
belong on the road........pedestri

ans on the footpath .if cyclists are scared to ride their cycle on
the road ...,.,..simple dont use your cycle.
the police quite rightly take motor bikes off the chav sort, when
they ride illegally, why do they not take bicycles that are being
ridden illegally by the green sort?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
6:23pm Sun 20 Dec 09

DougM wrote:
Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but this is because
card rivers do not respects the law, and because those roads are
designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are good for
'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters who cycle
and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right to be on
the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred ***-for-
brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council tax). Or
would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph do so on a
pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that traffic
moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles not share
the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are only
necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do not
know the rules of the road. A government report this week found that
of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were caused
by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant insurance for
the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country will be a safer
place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a large proportion
of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road."
Actually cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant,
stupid , lazy cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the
rules of the road are.
Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
6:25pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Granny wrote:
Voice of Unreason never said a truer word. Every day you can be
sitting in your ar at red traffic lights and count the number of
cyclists who blatantly ignore them. And who are the first ones to be
blamed if they are involved in an acident - the motorist! If they
stuck to the rules of the Highway Code then there would be no need
for cycle lanes anyway.
Correct as always, Grannie.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Whitedot, says...
6:33pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote:
Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but this is because
card rivers do not respects the law, and because those roads are
designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are good for
'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters who cycle
and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right to be on
the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred ***-for-
brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council tax). Or
would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph do so on a
pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that traffic
moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles not share
the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are only
necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do not
know the rules of the road. A government report this week found that
of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were caused
by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant insurance for
the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country will be a safer
place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a large proportion
of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road."
Actually cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant,
stupid , lazy cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the
rules of the road are.
Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
The only reason car drivers don't act even more selfishly than they
already do is because they can be identified by their number plates.
So don't play the holier than thou sanctimonious, 'car drivers are
better road users than cyclists' card, it doesn't wash.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


DougM, Brighton says...
6:39pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote:
Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but this is because
card rivers do not respects the law, and because those roads are
designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are good for
'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters who cycle
and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right to be on
the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred ***-for-
brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council tax). Or
would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph do so on a
pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that traffic
moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles not share
the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are only
necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do not
know the rules of the road. A government report this week found that
of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were caused
by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant insurance for
the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country will be a safer
place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a large proportion
of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road."
Actually cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant,
stupid , lazy cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the
rules of the road are.
Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
You are ignorant and wrong.
Cycle lanes are used to protect cyclists from the traffic which is
composed mostly of people who, although tested, should not be allowed
to drive.
Deaths caused by cyclists in the last 10 years = 1
Deaths caused by dangerous drivers in the last 10 years = 30,000+
Percentage of cycle:motor vehicle accidents caused by motor vehicle
drivers = 80%.

And we subsidise these people though our taxes - they are a drain on
society - freeloaders basically.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
6:49pm Sun 20 Dec 09

DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote: Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but
this is because card rivers do not respects the law, and because
those roads are designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are
good for 'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters
who cycle and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right
to be on the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred
***-for-brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council
tax). Or would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph
do so on a pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that
traffic moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles
not share the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are
only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do
not know the rules of the road. A government report this week found
that of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were
caused by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant
insurance for the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country
will be a safer place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a
large proportion of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising
the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road." Actually cycle
paths are only necessary because of the arrogant, stupid , lazy
cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the rules of the road
are. Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
You are ignorant and wrong. Cycle lanes are used to protect cyclists
from the traffic which is composed mostly of people who, although
tested, should not be allowed to drive. Deaths caused by cyclists in
the last 10 years = 1 Deaths caused by dangerous drivers in the last
10 years = 30,000+ Percentage of cycle:motor vehicle accidents caused
by motor vehicle drivers = 80%. And we subsidise these people though
our taxes - they are a drain on society - freeloaders basically.
The ignorance is all yours. Of course cyclists will ALWAYS come off
worse in a collision - you muppet.
I repeat - cyclists are not tested and constantly break every rule of
the Highway Code.
Not all motorists are perfect. But they are far more perfect than
most of the cyclists I see around Brighton - who seem to think that
NONE of the rules of the road apply to them.
The freeloaders are cyclists. Us motorists all pay through the nose
to use our cars. Cyclists pay absolutely nothing.
You need to get out more.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


DougM, Brighton says...
7:01pm Sun 20 Dec 09

Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote: Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but
this is because card rivers do not respects the law, and because
those roads are designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are
good for 'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters
who cycle and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right
to be on the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred
***-for-brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council
tax). Or would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph
do so on a pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that
traffic moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles
not share the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are
only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do
not know the rules of the road. A government report this week found
that of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were
caused by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant
insurance for the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country
will be a safer place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a
large proportion of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising
the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road." Actually cycle
paths are only necessary because of the arrogant, stupid , lazy
cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the rules of the road
are. Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
You are ignorant and wrong. Cycle lanes are used to protect cyclists
from the traffic which is composed mostly of people who, although
tested, should not be allowed to drive. Deaths caused by cyclists in
the last 10 years = 1 Deaths caused by dangerous drivers in the last
10 years = 30,000+ Percentage of cycle:motor vehicle accidents caused
by motor vehicle drivers = 80%. And we subsidise these people though
our taxes - they are a drain on society - freeloaders basically.
The ignorance is all yours. Of course cyclists will ALWAYS come off
worse in a collision - you muppet.
I repeat - cyclists are not tested and constantly break every rule of
the Highway Code.
Not all motorists are perfect. But they are far more perfect than
most of the cyclists I see around Brighton - who seem to think that
NONE of the rules of the road apply to them.
The freeloaders are cyclists. Us motorists all pay through the nose
to use our cars. Cyclists pay absolutely nothing.
You need to get out more.
Errrmm... the first paragraph of your reply is irrelevant, as I was
talking about the CAUSE of accidents, not the effect. To quote you -
you muppet.
You say that 'they are far more perfect than most of the cyclists I
see around Brighton' - hmmm... that would explain all the deaths
caused by car-drivers would it?
Cyclists cost society very little in comparison to drivers of private
motor-vehicles, in fact an infinitesimally smaller amount.
Vans, trucks and commercial vehicles are a necessity - the private
motor vehicle driver is a subsidised and dangerous waste of space,
killing thousands, costing millions, and blocking the roads, costing
industry millions in wasted man-hours.
And you should pay through the nose because of this. Not to mention
the cost to the NHS of all the accidents.
You need to get out in the REAL world a bit more, where you might
realise that people with attitudes like yours are holding this
country back, and making it bankrupt through waste and laziness.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Fercri Sakes, Hove says...
7:26pm Sun 20 Dec 09

DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote: Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but
this is because card rivers do not respects the law, and because
those roads are designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are
good for 'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters
who cycle and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right
to be on the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred
***-for-brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council
tax). Or would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph
do so on a pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that
traffic moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles
not share the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are
only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do
not know the rules of the road. A government report this week found
that of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were
caused by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant
insurance for the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country
will be a safer place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a
large proportion of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising
the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road." Actually cycle
paths are only necessary because of the arrogant, stupid , lazy
cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the rules of the road
are. Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
You are ignorant and wrong. Cycle lanes are used to protect cyclists
from the traffic which is composed mostly of people who, although
tested, should not be allowed to drive. Deaths caused by cyclists in
the last 10 years = 1 Deaths caused by dangerous drivers in the last
10 years = 30,000+ Percentage of cycle:motor vehicle accidents caused
by motor vehicle drivers = 80%. And we subsidise these people though
our taxes - they are a drain on society - freeloaders basically.
The ignorance is all yours. Of course cyclists will ALWAYS come off
worse in a collision - you muppet.
I repeat - cyclists are not tested and constantly break every rule of
the Highway Code.
Not all motorists are perfect. But they are far more perfect than
most of the cyclists I see around Brighton - who seem to think that
NONE of the rules of the road apply to them.
The freeloaders are cyclists. Us motorists all pay through the nose
to use our cars. Cyclists pay absolutely nothing.
You need to get out more.
Errrmm... the first paragraph of your reply is irrelevant, as I was
talking about the CAUSE of accidents, not the effect. To quote you -
you muppet.
You say that 'they are far more perfect than most of the cyclists I
see around Brighton' - hmmm... that would explain all the deaths
caused by car-drivers would it?
Cyclists cost society very little in comparison to drivers of private
motor-vehicles, in fact an infinitesimally smaller amount.
Vans, trucks and commercial vehicles are a necessity - the private
motor vehicle driver is a subsidised and dangerous waste of space,
killing thousands, costing millions, and blocking the roads, costing
industry millions in wasted man-hours.
And you should pay through the nose because of this. Not to mention
the cost to the NHS of all the accidents.
You need to get out in the REAL world a bit more, where you might
realise that people with attitudes like yours are holding this
country back, and making it bankrupt through waste and laziness.
I totally agree. And of course you're gonna get idiots on bikes as
well as in cars - but the ones in cars kill.

I wonder what the average waist size and cholesterol levels of
Granny, Voice of Unreason, Whitedot, Stan Bailey and Yorkie44 are? I
hope these comments are stored somewhere so their grandchildren can
read them one day and feel a little ashamed.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Bob_The_Ferret, Brighton says...
7:29pm Sun 20 Dec 09

What's the problem?

If they don't foul up Old Shoreham Road with an inappropriate
obstacle course, they won't need the Ł1.5m contribution towards it.
In fact money will probably be saved for all concerned.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
9:12pm Sun 20 Dec 09

DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote:
Voice of Unreason wrote:
DougM wrote: Some roads are simply too dangerous to cycle on - but
this is because card rivers do not respects the law, and because
those roads are designed stupidly. Cycle lanes on the pavement are
good for 'recreational' cyclists such as children. However commuters
who cycle and those who cycle for exercise should have as much right
to be on the road as any other form of transport (to all you inbred
***-for-brains out there, we all pay for the roads through council
tax). Or would you rather cyclists going at a perfectly legal 20mph
do so on a pavement with pedestrians? Many people on here moan that
traffic moves at no more than 20mph, so why should those on cycles
not share the road when they are at the same speed? Cycle paths are
only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy car-drivers who do
not know the rules of the road. A government report this week found
that of all accidents involving cycles and cars, 80% of them were
caused by reckless car driving. Annual retests and exorbitant
insurance for the lazy useless car-driving halfwits and the country
will be a safer place. Not to mention cheaper, as we all know that a
large proportion of our council tax bills goes towards subsidising
the fat lazy sods.
"Cycle paths are only necessary because of the arrogant stupid lazy
car-drivers who do not know the rules of the road." Actually cycle
paths are only necessary because of the arrogant, stupid , lazy
cyclists who do not know (or do not care) what the rules of the road
are. Car drivers all take a test. Cyclists don't.
You are ignorant and wrong. Cycle lanes are used to protect cyclists
from the traffic which is composed mostly of people who, although
tested, should not be allowed to drive. Deaths caused by cyclists in
the last 10 years = 1 Deaths caused by dangerous drivers in the last
10 years = 30,000+ Percentage of cycle:motor vehicle accidents caused
by motor vehicle drivers = 80%. And we subsidise these people though
our taxes - they are a drain on society - freeloaders basically.
The ignorance is all yours. Of course cyclists will ALWAYS come off
worse in a collision - you muppet. I repeat - cyclists are not tested
and constantly break every rule of the Highway Code. Not all
motorists are perfect. But they are far more perfect than most of the
cyclists I see around Brighton - who seem to think that NONE of the
rules of the road apply to them. The freeloaders are cyclists. Us
motorists all pay through the nose to use our cars. Cyclists pay
absolutely nothing. You need to get out more.
Errrmm... the first paragraph of your reply is irrelevant, as I was
talking about the CAUSE of accidents, not the effect. To quote you -
you muppet. You say that 'they are far more perfect than most of the
cyclists I see around Brighton' - hmmm... that would explain all the
deaths caused by car-drivers would it? Cyclists cost society very
little in comparison to drivers of private motor-vehicles, in fact an
infinitesimally smaller amount. Vans, trucks and commercial vehicles
are a necessity - the private motor vehicle driver is a subsidised
and dangerous waste of space, killing thousands, costing millions,
and blocking the roads, costing industry millions in wasted man-
hours. And you should pay through the nose because of this. Not to
mention the cost to the NHS of all the accidents. You need to get out
in the REAL world a bit more, where you might realise that people
with attitudes like yours are holding this country back, and making
it bankrupt through waste and laziness.
A load of old toss. So stupid and ignorant that I can't be bothered
to carry on this dialogue with a **** like you.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


wexler53, Brighton says...
11:05pm Sun 20 Dec 09

If you look at the pictures that came with the "consultation
document", you will see two very narrow lanes just wide enough for a
car. There were none including buses, HGVs and, I think, vans. Add
those to the equation, and the Old Shoreham road does look rather
inappropriate for a cycle lane as suggested.

As the central divide would be narrowed or removed, this would also
make it dangerous for all.

It would seem more sensible to either reduce it to one lane each way
combined with a cycle path, or better still, put the cycle path along
New Church Road which could support a Grand Avenue style cycle path,
and has the advantage of being level.


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

Bike Train will create safe space for children to cycle

3:55pm Thursday 17th December 2009

Print
Email
Share
Comments(0)

I’m sorry both Roger French and The Argus see our “Bike Train”
proposal as “crazy” (December 14) without giving it any serious
consideration.

People cycle for many reasons not just because “you can get on and
off as you choose” but also because it’s a fast, affordable, sociable
and environmentally friendly way to get around town.

Lewes Road for Clean Air is concerned at the craziness where many
potential cyclists fear using Lewes Road – a so-called sustainable
transport corridor – because heavy traffic and parking on cycle lanes
makes it feel so dangerous.

Bike Train aims to create a safe space in the form of scheduled mass
rides, where cyclists are highly visible and able to hold the road
for each other on routine journeys to work, school and university.

The rides will be supported by trained volunteer marshals and
participants briefed on cycling etiquette.

We plan to leave The Level for Falmer every 15 minutes during rush
hour. We don’t anticipate holding up traffic. North of the Vogue
Gyratory cars and buses will be able to overtake on the second lane.
Not crazy, just a practical community response to a tricky transport
situation.

While it’s great to see the effort invested in cycle training at
schools, many parents are uncomfortable with letting their children
cycle to school. Bike Train will create the practical means for
children, students and workers to get where they need to go in a
safe, fun, healthy, low-impact and mutually supportive way.

We will run test rides during March and plan to launch Bike Train by
the end of April. Initially it will run one day a week. If successful
and if we attract funding we will, by the autumn, extend the project
to other days and possibly other routes such as The Level to Dorothy
Stringer/Varndean.

Duncan Blinkhorn, Lewes Road for Clean Air, Seville Street, Brighton



--



Council to look at 20mph scheme in Brighton and Hove

3:41pm Thursday 17th December 2009

Print
Email
Share
Comments(4)
By Andy Chiles »

An investigation into the impact of installing a city-wide 20mph
speed limit has been launched.

If the Brighton and Hove City Council review finds that the move
would improve road safety without major detrimental effects on
traffic flow, the new restriction could be imposed on all streets
except key trunk routes.

The cross-party scrutiny panel will also consider the relative
benefits of a reduced speed limit or other traffic calming measures.

It will be headed by Green councillor Pete West, who yesterday said:
"The safety and well-being of local residents and visitors to the
city is a high priority for the council. Ensuring that the speed
limit on our city’s streets is appropriate will go a long way to
increasing the safety of our roads.”

He will be joined on the group by Conservative councillor Geoff
Wells, Labour leader Gill Mitchell and Lib Dem leader Paul Elgood.

The formation of the panel follows calls from campaigners and Green
Party councillors to consider a citywide speed reduction like those
implemented in other parts of Britain, including Portsmouth.

They came after a series of serious accidents on Brighton and Hove's
roads, including the incident in Chalky Road, Portslade, where nine-
year-old Henry Nugent died.

The panel will look at evidence of the effects of 20mph limits and
zones on road safety, and the consequences on traffic movement and
displacement.

It will make recommendations for policies to give to the council's
cabinet for approval.

The panel will hold a series of public meetings in January and
February, including one where residents and community groups will be
invited to give their views. To take part email scrutiny@brighton-
hove.gov.uk or call 01273 290450.

Print
Email
Share
Comments(4)

YOUR SAY

YourArgus


Forbes Coleman, says...
5:48pm Thu 17 Dec 09

Unless you're going to back it up with Speed Cameras, there is no
point. All 20 zones are treated as drag strips because most of them
are straight roads.

Nice sentiment, but it won't be controllable.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


quedula, brighton says...
6:07pm Thu 17 Dec 09

Its a nice idea in one way but will it put up pollution?. Vehicles
will be in using lower gears and spending longer in urban streets.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


mjlf, Hove says...
6:30pm Thu 17 Dec 09

My car uses significantly more petrol at 20 rather than 30mph.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Darling2, brighton village says...
6:34pm Thu 17 Dec 09

What's to look at? Just get on with it.



--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

"Cycle train" calls for Brighton

1:00pm Monday 14th December 2009


Comments(16)
By Tim Ridgway »

A “train of cyclists” could regularly make frequent trips along a
busy road.

Campaigners have presented proposals to Brighton and Hove City
Council to allow regular mass bike rides on Lewes Road.

Under the plans, the daily scheduled ‘train’ would take over a lane
and ferry people between the Level and Falmer.

Lewes Road for Clean Air presented the plans to Brighton and Hove
City Council as a way to reduce the 18,000 vehicle movements which
the Department of Transport state use the road every day.

Roger French, of Brighton and Hove Bus Company, said: “I think it’s a
crazy idea."

Could a “cycle train” work? Tell us what you think below.


YOUR SAY

YourArgus


Rita Snatch, brighton says...
1:25pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Roger French believes this is a crazy idea....... and so do I.

BUT...... If cyclists are a problem along the Lewes Road up to
Falmer, why not operate that Bendy Bus, but modified for bicycle
transportation; one part for passengers and the other for the bikes?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Mike D P, Denton says...
1:29pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Its too green for Roger French as his company dosn't get any money
from it! Now green busses less cars and more paying customers on
busses always gets his backing.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


RickH, Hove says...
1:29pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Of course Roger French thinks "...it's a crazy idea." Anything that
makes other modes of transport attractive other than buses is going
to be presented as 'crazy' or otherwise unattractive. Does make you
wonder why RF was approached for a quote, rather than someone do some
work and identify regular cyclists on that route to gain their opinions.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Ken dodds dads dog died, says...
1:40pm Mon 14 Dec 09

I would sooner walk then give that t@sser french a peeny



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


toldsloth, says...
1:42pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Mike D P wrote:
Its too green for Roger French as his company dosn't get any money
from it! Now green busses less cars and more paying customers on
busses always gets his backing.
average MPG from one of Mr.French's "green" vehicles is 6mpg........



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


toldsloth, says...
1:48pm Mon 14 Dec 09

This is just another example of "green madness" and is complete and
utter nonsense spouted by nutters who have nothing better to do than
dream up crap like this which bears no relevance to Mr.Average. I
love Brighton but sometimes the loonies who live here drive me mad -
proposed congestion charge for a tourist town, electric vehicle
charging points for non-existent electric vehicles, bus fares that
make it cheaper to use your car in town, nude bike rides, cycle lanes
that go nowhere - new one at the war memorial?, insane road schemes
such as The Drive cycle lane, St Peters bus lane - responsible for
killing a lovely guy I knew many years ago ....... the list goes on
and on. Give it up you freaks.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


toldsloth, says...
1:58pm Mon 14 Dec 09

on reflection, I'd like to know exactly how many cyclists use Lewes
Road compared to cars, buses, trucks etc. I'll bet its an
infinitessimal amount yet they already have a cycle lane which half
of them don't use.
Before you loonies kick off at me, I ride a bike and I drive a car.
The only difference is that I get to see both sides of the story not
just one through rose tinted cycling specs. If cyclists learned the
meaning of a red light and agreed not to ride on the pavement (its
meant for pedestrians guys) and perhaps wore some high vis and (God
forbid) invested in some lights, any lights they might be treated a
little better. I observe all of the above so why can't you? I pulled
alongside a cyclist on Preston Road the other night and suggested
that he might want to fit some lights as it was only my quick
reactions that saved him from serious injury and what did I get back
"**** off you moron" was the response. Enough said. The really
galling thing is if he'd have hit me - and it would have been his
fault as I was pulling out of a junction but he was almost invisible,
I wold have got the blame. It would have been up to me to sue him to
repair my vehicle yet he could claim off my insurance to fix his bike
and head (if he still had it attached). Public liability insurance
should be mandatory as should a basic proficiency test but of course
that would "be an invasion of your freedom" wouldn't it.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


kayotic, hove says...
2:25pm Mon 14 Dec 09

toldsloth wrote:
Mike D P wrote: Its too green for Roger French as his company dosn't
get any money from it! Now green busses less cars and more paying
customers on busses always gets his backing.
average MPG from one of Mr.French's "green" vehicles is 6mpg........
I can't let Mike D P go through life thinking there are two esses in
buses.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


She-Ra, Princess Of Power, Brighton says...
2:41pm Mon 14 Dec 09

"Under the plans, the daily scheduled ‘train’ would take over a lane
and ferry people between the Level and Falmer. "

Soooo.... they're taking over "one lane" where there is only one lane
between The Level and the Vogue Gyratory and then to reduce the rest
of the two lanes to one lane.... how does slowing all the car drivers
down help decrease emissions? The only thing it will reduce is speed
and it will increase journey times and thus the amount of fumes
pumped out... surely?

Why do they all need to ride together anyway - is there a problem
with the current cycle lanes?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


BlackRocker, Brighton says...
3:09pm Mon 14 Dec 09

I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with kayotic, hove.

Call me old fashioned, but I find it hard to take seriously the
comments of anyone who hasn't yet mastered basic spelling or English
grammar. Did they miss out on Tony Bliar's promised "Education,
education,education"
? How on earth do they manage to read the Argus?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Andy R, Hove says...
3:13pm Mon 14 Dec 09

kayotic wrote:
toldsloth wrote:
Mike D P wrote: Its too green for Roger French as his company dosn't
get any money from it! Now green busses less cars and more paying
customers on busses always gets his backing.
average MPG from one of Mr.French's "green" vehicles is 6mpg........
I can't let Mike D P go through life thinking there are two esses in
buses.
There ARE two esses in buses........



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Acker79, Brighton says...
3:16pm Mon 14 Dec 09

toldsloth wrote:
on reflection, I'd like to know exactly how many cyclists use Lewes
Road compared to cars, buses, trucks etc. I'll bet its an
infinitessimal amount yet they already have a cycle lane which half
of them don't use.
Before you loonies kick off at me, I ride a bike and I drive a car.
The only difference is that I get to see both sides of the story not
just one through rose tinted cycling specs. If cyclists learned the
meaning of a red light and agreed not to ride on the pavement (its
meant for pedestrians guys) and perhaps wore some high vis and (God
forbid) invested in some lights, any lights they might be treated a
little better. I observe all of the above so why can't you? I pulled
alongside a cyclist on Preston Road the other night and suggested
that he might want to fit some lights as it was only my quick
reactions that saved him from serious injury and what did I get back
"**** off you moron" was the response. Enough said. The really
galling thing is if he'd have hit me - and it would have been his
fault as I was pulling out of a junction but he was almost invisible,
I wold have got the blame. It would have been up to me to sue him to
repair my vehicle yet he could claim off my insurance to fix his bike
and head (if he still had it attached). Public liability insurance
should be mandatory as should a basic proficiency test but of course
that would "be an invasion of your freedom" wouldn't it.
Cyclists often *can't* use the cycle lane along the lewes road
between the level and the gyrotary because cars are always parked there.

Speaking as a cyclist (with lights, high vis clothing, helmet, an
inclination to stop at red lights etc) I have to say this is a bad
idea. Other than the pedestrians in the cycle lane along the sea
front, the thing that annoys me most on the roads is the other
cyclists that show no respect for the laws of the road.
Providing these cycle trains won't make them better cyclists, heck,
most of those cyclists that cause trouble are the sort that wouldn't
be interested in using a cycle train.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Murgatroyd, Brighton says...
3:47pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Every day I count the number of cars parked in the bike lane between
the Level and Gyratory, as I take my life into my own hands cycling
north. Every day it is over 10 - and sometimes as many as 20. Taxis,
takeaway deliver drivers and lazy b*****ds who can't be bothered to
use the loading bays provided and walk a few extra yards to the co-op
and the cashpoint. If cyclists aren't using Lewes Road (which they
are) it's because it's too bloody dangerous. Having said that, I
don't know that this cycle train is the answer. Proper parking
enforcement would be a start, followed by training for bus drivers to
actually be bike-aware and not clip the corner of the bike lane where
the road narrows.

Finally, why whenever the subject of cycling comes up, do the
reactionary ol gits on here start banging on about the minority of
irresponsible cyclists - as if the problems that they create mean
that the rest of us don't deserve to be safe. Get out of your tin
boxes, get on 2 wheels and see how you get on on Lewes Road fatties



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Mick Hunt, Upper Dicker says...
4:47pm Mon 14 Dec 09

I resent that!! I ride a bike and I'm still fat......



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


kkj, Brighton says...
4:52pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Someone help me out. What's a 'cycle train'?



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


freddo, Brighton says...
5:15pm Mon 14 Dec 09

Why not? the cars form a slow 'train' all day every day!


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

Missing lanes

3:16pm Sunday 13th December 2009

I refer to the contribution headed “Cycling Rules” by Mrs W R
Charlton (Letters, December 10) and would like her to tell me where
these wonderful cycle lanes are.
Apart from the cycle lane along the seafront, which cyclists have to
share with pedestrians, there are no other cycle lanes leading anywhere.

Where there is a cycle lane, such as the one in Dyke Road, cars are
parked along it, making it dangerous to use.

Rubbish ends up in the gutter, which has the effect of narrowing the
cycle lane.

There is, of course, the cycle lane in Saltdean, which is not even as
long as a bicycle.

I suggest Mrs Charlton makes a New Year’s resolution to get on a bike
and find these elusive lanes that she is so keen for cyclists to
enjoy and then tell the rest of us where they are.

Mrs E Cole, Northease Gardens, Hove


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

Cycling rules

5:42pm Wednesday 9th December 2009

   Comments (2)   Have your say »


REGARDING Adam Trimingham’s city cycling issues (The Argus, December
2), I agree – cycling must be made safer.

Those who break the cycling codes should be fined.

Why shouldn’t cyclists stop at red lights? Where there are cycle
lanes for their safety, why do they still go on the roads?

Many bikes go the wrong way down one-way streets.

Cyclists are often seen with no lights, no reflectors, no luminous
jackets and no helmets. They ride more than one astride in the middle
of the road.

They never put their hand out, so the poor motorist does not know
where these bikes are going.

They go at speed and a lot of their manners to car users leaves much
to be desired.

Today’s roads are too busy for cycles in general. Keep to cycle
lanes, then enjoy cycling.

Mrs W R Charlton Westfield Avenue North Saltdean


straycat, Brighton says...
7:44pm Wed 9 Dec 09

I totally agree with Mrs Charlton's comments regarding cyclists.
However I have no doubt that any views that are seen as derogatory
towards this group of road users will once again be dismissed and
excused as being "a very small minority of cyclists... blah blah blah"
Why do we not see the vast majority of cyclists waiting at red
lights? Why, because none of them does so. Cyclists in Brighton show
no regard for the Highway Code and yet still have the cheek to insist
on more cycle lanes and better manners from other road users.
If you can't abide by the rules leave your bike in the shed!




puddingandpi, Brighton says...
8:09pm Wed 9 Dec 09

I took an MOT Riding & Road Safety test on my horse & I don't
understand why there isn't something similar for cyclists.

Every time someone buys a TV the retailer informs the TV Licence
people. Whenever someone buys a bike, the retailer should inform the
cycling version of the DVLA & all cyclists should carry insurance.

The main reason why I signal clearly on my horse is because being hit
by a car can cause offence.


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

Hi Max

I actually have two walkpersons now but they aren't Sony ones. It's such a great
idea and the iPod is not as cool a concept imho. Using the headphone cable as an
aerial is very ingenious.

I never use my walkpersons for cycling of course. I use them for gardening. I
have two because I had to get a digital one as the analogue Radio 3 reception is
very bad in my back garden for some reason and oddly enough the digital
reception is much better.

Patrick

http://www.patrickjames.co.uk

On 4 Dec 2009, at 15:59, Max wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I remember similar stories two or three decade ago when Walkmans were
> the latest personal music devices.
>
> Last month I saw a Walkman in a glass case in Bassetlaw Museum, Retford.
>
> Max

Hi,

I remember similar stories two or three decade ago when Walkmans were
the latest personal music devices.

Last month I saw a Walkman in a glass case in Bassetlaw Museum, Retford.

Max


On 4 Dec 2009, at 15:27, Patrick James wrote:

> Hi
>
> First it is important that I say I don't read the Daily Mail.
>
> I was reading a blog about iPods and there was an entry with a link
> to this story in the Daily Mail:
>
> http://is.gd/5ciy0
>
> Patrick
>
> http://www.patrickjames.co.uk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> brighton_area_cyclists-unsubscribe@...
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi

First it is important that I say I don't read the Daily Mail.

I was reading a blog about iPods and there was an entry with a link to this
story in the Daily Mail:

http://is.gd/5ciy0

Patrick

http://www.patrickjames.co.uk

Cycling injuries on the rise in Brighton and Hove

3:00pm Monday 30th November 2009

   Comments (20)   Have your say »


A campaign group has called on a council to improve road safety after
figures revealed the number of cyclists being injured has increased.

Between April and June of this year, 47 cyclists were injured in
Brighton and Hove, compared with 44 over the same period last year, a
rise of 6.8%.

Despite the increase, the figure is still well below the national
increase in cycle casualties of 4,806, which equates to 9%.

A spokesman for Brighton and Hove City Council, which supplied the
figures, said the authority believed the rise was caused by more
people using bikes.

Adam Pride, secretary of Brighton cycle group Bricycles, said:
“Brighton is a cycling town which is meant to be encouraging more and
more cyclists but the council has got to ensure the roads are safer
for them, particularly those who have only recently taken up cycling.

“Until we reach a critical mass in the number of cyclists on the
roads it will rise.

“In Holland, where there are more cyclists, the number is much lower.

“The number of injuries will rise as more people take cycling up.”

A spokesman for the city council said: “At the moment we do not have
data to indicate if there has been a proportionate increase in the
use of cycles, which we believe to be the case.

“The council works closely with other agencies and partners to reduce
casualties on the city’s streets, an example being the recent
Brighten Up campaign, jointly run by the council and Sussex Police to
target cyclists riding at night without lights.

“The enforcement led to 116 fixed penalty notices being issued by the
police and those stopped were given vouchers to collect free cycle
lights from the council.

“The responsibility for making the city’s streets safer to use rests
with all road user types.

It is a shared responsibility and until everybody accepts that and
does their bit to address road safety instead of blaming everybody
else, we will never be able to have a significant impact on the
unacceptable carnage on our roads.”

There have been no cycling deaths in Brighton between January and
June but in the rest of the UK the number of cyclists killed or
seriously injured increased by 19% to 820.


YOUR SAY

YourArgus


salty_pete, Withdean says...
3:22pm Mon 30 Nov 09

So all the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money spent "to improve
road safety" have done absolutely no good at all then. Can we now
remove the unnecessary cycle lane in Grand Avenue and thus improve
road safety.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Rostrum, Hove says...
4:26pm Mon 30 Nov 09

It would help if cyclists followed the high way code.
Did'nt use their mobile phones.
Didn't listen to their MP3 players.
Went the right way down one way streets.

etc etc.

A lot of the time they're their own worst enemy.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


andygunner, brighton says...
4:55pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Whoever the bloke is who rides home along church road westbound about
6pm every night like a total lunatic, you will be the next to add to
the injury list and its your own fault. You race cars, weave in and
out of vehicles at lights and are a hazard to others and yourself....
what you dont get, is that most drivers wont see you undertaking them
unless they are checking their mirror to make a left turn. one day,
you will be undertaking and the driver wont realise. undertaking is
illegal for car drivers and cyclists too.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


davyboy, abingdon, oxon says...
5:01pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Rostrum wrote:
It would help if cyclists followed the high way code.
Did'nt use their mobile phones.
Didn't listen to their MP3 players.
Went the right way down one way streets.

etc etc.

A lot of the time they're their own worst enemy.
i was about to say the same thing. take responsibility for your own
actions! use lights at night, hi-vis clothing, stop at red lights,
use cycle lanes where provided, and don't blame everyone else. if you
watch where you are going, you will not ride into pot-holes. the
highway code applies to ALL road users, including cyclists.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Wilftop, Brighton says...
5:03pm Mon 30 Nov 09

I was just about to say the same thing as Davyboy. Wear hi-vis & use
lights. I see so many still with dark clothing & no hi-vis or lights.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


ICantThinkOfAName, LANCING says...
5:21pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Were these injuries sustained when the cyclists were on the road, in
cycle lanes, on pavements, crossing traffic lights at red or going
the wrong way down one way streets. Did they wear helmets and high
visibility clothing. Only when this is know can the problems be
rectified.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


monty sidewinder, brighton says...
5:34pm Mon 30 Nov 09

when you go to move position in your lane or to overtake a parked
vehicle you look in your mirror - if your riding a motorbike you also
look behind before you move to overtake, it's called a 'lifesaver
look' - i see very few cyclists do the lifesaver look and most just
cycle out and around parked obsticles without a thought as to what
might be behind them and seeing as pushbikes dont have any mirrors,
looking behind themselves might save a few more of them getting hit
by cars etc. the council should make this anti car city safer by
regulating the cyclists. make them perform an adequate proficiency
and road craft test and then issue permits to them- like tax discs
and then they should abide by the road laws like the rest of us and
if they ride on the pavement and run red lights they should be banned
from riding a bike and have thier bikes impounded.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


DougM, Brighton says...
5:41pm Mon 30 Nov 09

It doesn't matter if you're lit up like a Christmas tree - car
drivers still don't look; they still overtake cyclists and then turn
left in front of them; they still overtake cyclists when they can see
that the cyclist has an obstacle to negotiate in front of them; they
still cut up cyclists in their rush to get to the back of the next
queue; car drivers still are seen driving whilst texting and phoning;
car drivers are seen by me (in my van) every day jumping red lights
and making illegal moves.
Until their reckless and dangerous driving is cracked down upon, and
until drivers are given compulsory annual eyesight tests the 2538
deaths caused by dangerous driving will increase next year.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


davyboy, abingdon, oxon says...
6:00pm Mon 30 Nov 09

DougM wrote:
It doesn't matter if you're lit up like a Christmas tree - car
drivers still don't look; they still overtake cyclists and then turn
left in front of them; they still overtake cyclists when they can see
that the cyclist has an obstacle to negotiate in front of them; they
still cut up cyclists in their rush to get to the back of the next
queue; car drivers still are seen driving whilst texting and phoning;
car drivers are seen by me (in my van) every day jumping red lights
and making illegal moves.
Until their reckless and dangerous driving is cracked down upon, and
until drivers are given compulsory annual eyesight tests the 2538
deaths caused by dangerous driving will increase next year.
these are also valid comments, but it takes two to tango. every road
user has to take responsibility for their actions. if you speed past
a cyclist, then turn in front of them, you are committing the offence
of driving without due care and attention, and, if you were to injure
the cyclist, could be heading for a ban. you are right Doug, there
are many drivers who commit the offences that you mention, and are
never caught, so we must all improve our roadcraft!



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Fercri Sakes, Hove says...
6:50pm Mon 30 Nov 09

salty_pete wrote:
So all the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money spent "to improve
road safety" have done absolutely no good at all then. Can we now
remove the unnecessary cycle lane in Grand Avenue and thus improve
road safety.
Sorry, me and many other cyclists use that path and we don't want to
get run over by people such as yourself. Can you explain why road
safety would improve if you removed this path?

Me and quite a few other Brightonians who have shed our cars for
bikes have purposely moved to areas with good cycle links in the
vicinity. We want to stay alive as well as fit.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


TheInsider, Brighton says...
7:39pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Think once, think twice, think bike.
Cyclists are vulnerable and yes it's really infuriating when they
pedal along without lights and running red lights, but some drivers
are just as bad.
As a car, motorcycle and cyclist I try to share the road with all users.
There is no such thing as an accident someone is at fault and
sometimes its a motorist and sometimes the cyclist.
But the more cyclists are on the road, the fewer cars so motorists
should support cyclists as it gives cars a clearer route.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Hugh Rinall, Brighton says...
8:16pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Suggest the cyclists are educated in traffic law and stop behaving
like selfish idiots!!!!!!!!



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Ashley, Sussex says...
9:13pm Mon 30 Nov 09

I agree with most of the above, riding standards in Brighton are
appalling - and I speak as a cyclist, as well as a pedestrian and
driver.
.
This is not helped by a ridiculous network of cycle lanes and paths.
Mixing bikes and pedestrians is ludicrous for both pedsetrians and
cyclists.
.
How much did it cost to install and maintain the cycle lane in Dyke
Road? And it is routinely blocked by parked cars for its whole length.
.
If there is to be no parking enforcement then don't have a cycle
lane. What a futile waste of money.
.
Enforcement (or lack of it) is the issue when it comes to riding on
the pavement, failing to obey traffic signals and having no lights.
.
The saddest thing is that serious cyclists are tarred with the same
brush. The majority of riders that are to blame are not 'cyclists'
they are 'people riding bikes' and there is a distinct difference.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Ashley, Sussex says...
9:15pm Mon 30 Nov 09

DougM wrote:
It doesn't matter if you're lit up like a Christmas tree - car
drivers still don't look; they still overtake cyclists and then turn
left in front of them; they still overtake cyclists when they can see
that the cyclist has an obstacle to negotiate in front of them; they
still cut up cyclists in their rush to get to the back of the next
queue; car drivers still are seen driving whilst texting and phoning;
car drivers are seen by me (in my van) every day jumping red lights
and making illegal moves.
Until their reckless and dangerous driving is cracked down upon, and
until drivers are given compulsory annual eyesight tests the 2538
deaths caused by dangerous driving will increase next year.
However, I also agree with DougM.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Ashley, Sussex says...
9:17pm Mon 30 Nov 09

TheInsider wrote:
Think once, think twice, think bike.
Cyclists are vulnerable and yes it's really infuriating when they
pedal along without lights and running red lights, but some drivers
are just as bad.
As a car, motorcycle and cyclist I try to share the road with all users.
There is no such thing as an accident someone is at fault and
sometimes its a motorist and sometimes the cyclist.
But the more cyclists are on the road, the fewer cars so motorists
should support cyclists as it gives cars a clearer route.
I also agree with TheInsider... well said.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


Ashley, Sussex says...
9:19pm Mon 30 Nov 09

Hugh Rinall wrote:
Suggest the cyclists are educated in traffic law and stop behaving
like selfish idiots!!!!!!!!
I agree with this - and they should be joined on the course by car/
van/lorry/bus drivers - and motorcyclists.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


bug eye, hove says...
11:29pm Mon 30 Nov 09

grand avenue cycle lane is appauling as traffic crosses its path
every few meters to go into large residential driveways. also
pedestrians crossing the road or getting out of their parked cars
have to walk across the cycle lane that is very obscured. I parked
there a few weeks ago and stepped toward the pavement across the
cycle lane as a lunatic biker coming down hill at break neck speed
nearly knocked me over and could have injured himself. the cycle
lanes are very poorly marked or divided, how often do you see
unsuspecting tourists doodling along the seafront cycle lane because
it blends in with the pavement, or they are queuing to cross the road.



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


caeos, sussex says...
11:35pm Mon 30 Nov 09

if it will allow this link to the bbc video
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/local/cambridgeshi
re/hi/tv_and_radio/n
ewsid_8386000/838646
8.stm

Inside Out takes a closer look at some near misses between cars and
bikes on the streets of Cambridge with on-board cameras.
The Inside Out programme will be broadcast on BBC1 at 1930 BST on
Monday 30 November.
or iplayer
sw - body loss!



QUOTE » | REPORT THIS POST »


caeos, sussex says...
11:46pm Mon 30 Nov 09

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/programmes/b0071mjk and watch this


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 18:35, Richard Turnbull
<richardturnbull@...>wrote:

>  its now available to watch at
> http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Programmes/default.html?ViewType=1&Filter=1293
> will sit down later to see it, thanks Fred
>

I like the cabbie complaining about having to pay for his fuel - so unfair!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

20mph sense

6:51pm Monday 16th November 2009

   Comments (0)   Have your say »


The correspondent who was concerned about the effect of a 20mph speed
limit on busy motorists (The Argus, November 10) is mistaken in
thinking the benefits of a citywide limit would all be for cyclists.

In March 2008, Portsmouth adopted a speed limit of 20mph for
residential streets without the use of speed humps.

This decision was made by the community, not just the council.

Initial results announced at the Portsmouth – Britain’s First 20mph
City Conference were extremely positive. Total road casualties have
fallen by 15% and total accidents by 13%.

Groups who have particularly benefited are children under 15
travelling in vehicles (down by 22%) and the elderly (casualties aged
70 or over down by 31%). More data needs to be collected but this
pattern is reflected by other 20mph adopters such as Hull, where
child casualties have fallen by 74%.

Limits of 20mph make sense for all vulnerable road users and many
Brighton and Hove residents would very much like to see a 20mph limit
outside their front door.

Becky Reynolds, Bricycles, Havelock Road, Brighton



--



Safer streets

6:56pm Monday 16th November 2009

   Comments (1)   Have your say »


Nigel Davis and Christine Bell (Letters, November 10) are absolutely
right that we shouldn’t allow cyclists to dictate transport policy in
this city.

However, many communities and thousands of residents across the city
are deeply concerned about road safety on their streets.

Consequently, in the past couple of years alone there have been
nearly 100 calls from communities for action by councillors to reduce
the speed of traffic where they live. Surely the duty of a
responsible council is to listen and to do its best to respond.

The cross-party agreement by the council’s environment scrutiny
committee on Monday, November 9, to set up a panel that will take a
thorough look at this issue demonstrates it is doing just that.

This panel will look at what we can learn from the initiatives of
cities across the country, including Bristol and Portsmouth to name
just two.

These cities are successfully making their streets safer by setting
20mph speed limits on many residential roads. Crucially they are
doing this with the support of both communities and the police.

Of course all cities are different but we must take every opportunity
to learn what we can from best practice elsewhere.

The link between road safety and the speed of traffic is well
established. Making our streets safer for everybody, be they
pedestrians, cyclists or vehicle occupants, must surely be a priority
for us all.

With 141 people killed or seriously injured on the roads of this city
last year, tragically 13 of these children, doing nothing is not an
option.

Ian Davey Green Party councillor for St Peter’s and North Laine,
Green spokesman on transport



bug eye, hove says...
9:42pm Mon 16 Nov 09

you will find the link between safety and accidents is stupid people,
quite often cyclists and pedestrians. responsibility should be the
order of the day, if you are going to walk across the road without
looking you may get hit. equally if you are going to drive like a mad
man you may kill someone or kill yourself. education, not dictation.

--

School chaos

6:59pm Monday 16th November 2009

   Comments (1)   Have your say »


On Friday, while driving out of my road and passing the local infant/
junior school, I hit a child who appeared from behind another car.

There were dozens of cars everywhere. The parents present were
wonderful as were the teachers. Thankfully I was driving very slowly
and the little boy was not hurt but the shock will stay with me for a
long time and I suspect with the child as well.

The council, the schools or parents should put a stop to the car
chaos that occurs twice daily outside our schools before a child is
killed.

Any reasonable person can see that something must be done. Would
parking a few streets away be so awful? We campaign to stop child
abuse, child poverty and bullying etc so come on, let’s protect our
children by stopping the car chaos outside our schools.

Roberta Greed, Moyne Close, Hove




--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

its now available to watch at
http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Programmes/default.html?ViewType=1&Filter=1293
will sit down later to see it, thanks Fred

Rich





________________________________
From: Richard Turnbull <richardturnbull@...>
To: brighton_area_cyclists@...
Sent: Sun, 15 November, 2009 13:29:53
Subject: Re: [brighton_area_cyclists] Tonight programme last night


looks like it should be up on their iplayer in the next couple of days...
http://www.itv. com/ITVPlayer/ Programmes/ default.html? ViewType= 1&Filter=
1293

____________ _________ _________ __
From: Tom Coady <tom.coady@gmail. com>
To: brighton_area_ cyclists@ yahoogroups. co.uk
Sent: Sat, 14 November, 2009 17:50:26
Subject: Re: [brighton_area_ cyclists] Tonight programme last night

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:00, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@brighton. co.uk>wrote:

> Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
> would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
> in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'

Missed it :(
http://www.itv. com/news/ tonight/episodes /driversinthedoc k/default. html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It's a good idea but I do find that instructibles can overly complicate thigs!

You could always get these
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Bar-End-LED-auto-shut-off-bike-lights-RRP-8-95_W0QQitemZ37\
0290231169QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_SportsLeisure_Cycling_Bike_Lights?hash=item56370\
48781



--- In brighton_area_cyclists@..., "Adam Pride" <adampride@...>
wrote:
>
> Looks a bit complicated to make for what it is (speaking as someone with a
> lot of experience of PCB's, micro-processors, etc.) but I think a good idea
>
>
> http://www.instructables.com/id/Bar-End-Brake-Light-BEBL/
>
> Best Regards
> Adam Pride
> mailto:adampride@...
> www.bricycles.org.uk
> Bricycles: The Brighton, Hove and District Cycling Group
> www.brighton-hovecycleforum.org.uk
> The Brighton & Hove City Cycle Forum
> and please check out: www.carbusters.org
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Looks a bit complicated to make for what it is (speaking as someone with a
lot of experience of PCB's, micro-processors, etc.) but I think a good idea


http://www.instructables.com/id/Bar-End-Brake-Light-BEBL/

Best Regards
Adam Pride
mailto:adampride@...
www.bricycles.org.uk
Bricycles: The Brighton, Hove and District Cycling Group
www.brighton-hovecycleforum.org.uk
The Brighton & Hove City Cycle Forum
and please check out: www.carbusters.org



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For background to the programme see

http://www.itv.com/news/tonight/episodes/driversinthedock/default.html

and do note that instead of the RAC Foundation or another mainstream
motoring body, the page has a link to the ABD, a minority group that
has so few members it won't reveal its true number.

On 15 Nov 2009, at 13:29, Richard Turnbull wrote:

> looks like it should be up on their iplayer in the next couple of
> days...
> http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Programmes/default.html?ViewType=1&Filter=1293
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Tom Coady <tom.coady@...>
> To: brighton_area_cyclists@...
> Sent: Sat, 14 November, 2009 17:50:26
> Subject: Re: [brighton_area_cyclists] Tonight programme last night
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:00, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@brighton.
> co.uk>wrote:
>
>> Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
>> would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
>> in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'
>
> Missed it :(
> http://www.itv. com/news/ tonight/episodes /driversinthedoc k/
> default. html
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> brighton_area_cyclists-unsubscribe@...
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

looks like it should be up on their iplayer in the next couple of days...
http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Programmes/default.html?ViewType=1&Filter=1293





________________________________
From: Tom Coady <tom.coady@...>
To: brighton_area_cyclists@...
Sent: Sat, 14 November, 2009 17:50:26
Subject: Re: [brighton_area_cyclists] Tonight programme last night


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:00, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@brighton. co.uk>wrote:

> Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
> would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
> in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'

Missed it :(
http://www.itv. com/news/ tonight/episodes /driversinthedoc k/default. html

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Edmond-Smith

--- On Sat, 14/11/09, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@...> wrote:


From: Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@...>
Subject: [brighton_area_cyclists] Tonight programme last night
To: brighton_area_cyclists@...
Date: Saturday, 14 November, 2009, 11:00


 



Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'
legislation! They also managed to get one of the Top Gear blokes on a
bike, who actually enjoyed the experience and has since bought one
(to put in the back of his Range Rover!). Also compared and
contrasted the UK cycling experience with the much better Dutch one...

fred

--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@fredpipes. com
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@gmail. com
www.fredpipes. com
blog: www.fredblog. co.uk
NUJ member since 1975











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:00, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@...>wrote:

> Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
> would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
> in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'


Missed it :(
http://www.itv.com/news/tonight/episodes/driversinthedock/default.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 14:11, Alan (Fred) Pipes <pipes@...>wrote:

> Green councillor Ian Davey said:
> “You just have to look at the railings outside the railway station
> everyday to see how it has taken off.”
>

I guess that's a metric of sorts, but it's more an annoyance than an
achievement.
In any case I suspect only a small proportion are "short-term"
I saw Southern staff have their own bolt cutters to deal with the overflow.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cycling in Brighton and Hove increases by a quarter

1:00pm Saturday 14th November 2009
By Tim Ridgway »

Cycling in Brighton and Hove has increased by more than a quarter in
the last three years.

The rise of 27% was revealed by the Government as it announced a
Ł270,000 boost to improving conditions for those on two wheels.

Brighton and Hove City Council received the grant as part of its
cycling town status.

Green councillor Ian Davey said: “There’s no doubt that there has
been a huge increase in cycle traffic in the past few years.

“You just have to look at the railings outside the railway station
everyday to see how it has taken off.”

Brighton and Hove has received Ł1.5million of Government money since
it became a cycle town in 2006.

The latest funding will be spent on travel plans for schools, work on
the seafront cycle route and improving cycle parking at Brighton
station.


--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

Interesting and entertaining prog on ITV last night about who a panel
would judge to be to blame in various cyclist v motorist encounters,
in the context of the proposed 'motorist always to blame'
legislation! They also managed to get one of the Top Gear blokes on a
bike, who actually enjoyed the experience and has since bought one
(to put in the back of his Range Rover!). Also compared and
contrasted the UK cycling experience with the much better Dutch one...

fred

--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 22:08, Mark
<mark.strong@...>wrote:

> One of the results of the research that has been done is that there is no
> clear proven link with drugs problems. Some thefts are indeed by addicts,
> but others are not (and there are definitely "professionals" out there). The
> article by Inspector Leet in the last Bricycles newsletter has some more
> details
>

Thanks Mark
I had a quick look at a couple on
http://www.bricycles.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=\
57but
failed to find any reference to Inspector Leet, but I've subscribed to
the RSS feed in case there's any more news.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi guys

In case you didn't know, a local Cycle Theft Working Group has been working on
this for a couple of year. I sit on it on behalf of the the cycle forum and
there are also reps from the police, council etc.

The results are generally positive in that the level of thefts is not increasing
while the number of cyclists is. There's a lot more to it than that, of course.

One of the results of the research that has been done is that there is no clear
proven link with drugs problems. Some thefts are indeed by addicts, but others
are not (and there are definitely "professionals" out there). The article by
Inspector Leet in the last Bricycles newsletter has some more details

Mark Strong

--- In brighton_area_cyclists@..., Tom Coady <tom.coady@...>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 22:29, Paul Bonett <bonettpa@...> wrote:
>
> > I have been riding in Brighton since 1975 and have only lost one bike...I
> > did chase and retrieve a bike from a potential thief about 10 years ago.  I
> > ride daily to work and at work.  Lock it every time!
> >
>
> Thanks for the optimistic anecdote Paul, it's encouraging to know that it's
> possible to go 34 years with only one loss and one chase. I suspect neither
> of us represent  the average experience though, and even with the official
> statistics I assume the losses are under-reported particularly given the
> lacklustre response.
>
> Also thank for the locking tip, but I think this failed to work as a
> deterrent in my case, but I should confess I don't always deploy the most
> effective locks. Going back to anecdotal evidence, I think there are some
> areas where bikes are almost guaranteed to disappear overnight and others
> where it's possible to safely leave a bike for months or years. I don't know
> why this should be but assume there is a correlation with the number of
> people passing who need money to buy non-prescription medication. Assuming
> my theory's correct I guess it's just one of the many costs of prohibition?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

20mph limit is a needless restriction on motorists

4:56pm Monday 9th November 2009

I see there is an increasing clamour for a 20mph speed limit in
Brighton and Hove, principally from the highly vociferous cycling
group Bricycles, as if there are not enough restrictions on vehicles
in and around the city already.
How is this going to help? Traffic around the centre barely moves
faster than this anyway, with all the traffic “management” systems
and sheer popularity of driving.

It will be almost impossible to monitor as the 30mph limit is usually
quite adequate. Surely police have quite enough to do without this
extra burden.

For busy motorists, including tradesmen, delivery drivers and taxi
drivers, it would make their working day almost impossible, on top of
already draconian parking restrictions.

Bricycles are disappointed that only 3% of residents use bikes. Do
they really expect parents with small children, buggies and shopping
to give up their cars, let alone the elderly or anyone else carrying
anything more than a small rucksack ?

Laudable as cycling is, for most people it is completely impractical.

Bricycles sees the solution as “educating” councillors and the public
and, to this end, sees a 20mph limit as a big step in that direction.

When are they going to accept reality? For a great many people, a
vehicle is a necessity.

Of course, no one appreciates those who abuse either mode of
transport – the boy-racer or the cyclists who blatantly ignore the
Highway Code. But surely a lower limit is just a step too far in the
wrong direction?

Nigel Davis, Hollingdean Terrace, Brighton

--

Cyclists must not dictate policy

4:57pm Monday 9th November 2009

   Comments (0)   Have your say »

Cycling campaigners have called for a 20mph speed limit in the city.
Like most reasonable people, I have no argument with 20mph limits
around schools or residential areas where children play.

Cyclists, however, should not be allowed to dictate road policy in
Brighton and Hove.

A great deal of money been spent on this minority. The once-spacious
streets of Hove have been turned into winding single lane tracks to
accommodate cycle lanes.

People who cycle to work are quite often only “fair weather” cyclists
and are back in their cars at the first sign of rain.

While it is admirable some people do brave the elements and traffic
to cycle to work, they will always be a minority because, let’s face
it, most of us have no intention of ever cycling anywhere.

Christine Bell, Benett Drive, Hove



--
Alan (Fred) Pipes FRSA
fred@...
if I'm away, try: alan.pipes@...
www.fredpipes.com
blog: www.fredblog.co.uk
NUJ member since 1975

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 22:29, Paul Bonett <bonettpa@...> wrote:

> I have been riding in Brighton since 1975 and have only lost one bike...I
> did chase and retrieve a bike from a potential thief about 10 years ago.  I
> ride daily to work and at work.  Lock it every time!
>

Thanks for the optimistic anecdote Paul, it's encouraging to know that it's
possible to go 34 years with only one loss and one chase. I suspect neither
of us represent  the average experience though, and even with the official
statistics I assume the losses are under-reported particularly given the
lacklustre response.

Also thank for the locking tip, but I think this failed to work as a
deterrent in my case, but I should confess I don't always deploy the most
effective locks. Going back to anecdotal evidence, I think there are some
areas where bikes are almost guaranteed to disappear overnight and others
where it's possible to safely leave a bike for months or years. I don't know
why this should be but assume there is a correlation with the number of
people passing who need money to buy non-prescription medication. Assuming
my theory's correct I guess it's just one of the many costs of prohibition?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]