Nottingham Council Traffic Department pro cyclists gone mad
Discussion
The road planning in Nottingham IS anti-car. I don't disagree with that for a second - but IMHO that's because it's one of the most congested cities in the country and the Govt has dictated that the best way to change that is to make driving as intolerable as possible. "Building in" congestion is apparently the solution.
If more people used the (actually good!) public transport around Nottingham, the situation would be much better. Cycling...well, each to their own. I like commuting on a bike, but apparently that makes me "the enemy" to far to many (because I'm "one of them
s that ride two-abreast" as I was told this morning, despite never having ridden on a group ride).
@Mike - 50 years of driving or not, cycle lanes (and priority to the cyclist) are here to stay. The roads are way more heavily congested than they were in the 60s. Adapt, move on. The more cyclists there are, the fewer cars there'll be - and outside the city centre this will improve things no end (as you know, Middleton Blvd is a ridiculously busy area).
If more people used the (actually good!) public transport around Nottingham, the situation would be much better. Cycling...well, each to their own. I like commuting on a bike, but apparently that makes me "the enemy" to far to many (because I'm "one of them
s that ride two-abreast" as I was told this morning, despite never having ridden on a group ride).@Mike - 50 years of driving or not, cycle lanes (and priority to the cyclist) are here to stay. The roads are way more heavily congested than they were in the 60s. Adapt, move on. The more cyclists there are, the fewer cars there'll be - and outside the city centre this will improve things no end (as you know, Middleton Blvd is a ridiculously busy area).
All road users have certain rights and also responsibilities. I would ask a question regarding innocent drivers that have earned
a very large amount of no claims bonuses throughout their driving years. For instance my wife who I taught to drive in the sixties and has
a totally unblemished record of zero accidents since 1972 and she like hundreds of other careful lady drivers will have to negotiate the junctions to get onto the ring road.
Fact is, the junctions have been made a hazard by the fact that they incite a cyclist to ride straight over all these junctions without slowing or stopping and more so seen as of late.
I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability? Is it right that years of earned no claims/no accidents should be wiped out due
to no fault of the driver?
As I said in the first post if the cyclists could be seen adequately for drivers to give way to them all would be well but the facts are that cyclists cannot be seen adequately by any driver to be able to give way to at these junctions that is why they would be deemed dangerous by any professional road safety person.
Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
a very large amount of no claims bonuses throughout their driving years. For instance my wife who I taught to drive in the sixties and has
a totally unblemished record of zero accidents since 1972 and she like hundreds of other careful lady drivers will have to negotiate the junctions to get onto the ring road.
Fact is, the junctions have been made a hazard by the fact that they incite a cyclist to ride straight over all these junctions without slowing or stopping and more so seen as of late.
I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability? Is it right that years of earned no claims/no accidents should be wiped out due
to no fault of the driver?
As I said in the first post if the cyclists could be seen adequately for drivers to give way to them all would be well but the facts are that cyclists cannot be seen adequately by any driver to be able to give way to at these junctions that is why they would be deemed dangerous by any professional road safety person.
Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
Mick50NCD said:
All road users have certain rights and also responsibilities. I would ask a question regarding innocent drivers that have earned
a very large amount of no claims bonuses throughout their driving years. For instance my wife who I taught to drive in the sixties and has
a totally unblemished record of zero accidents since 1972 and she like hundreds of other careful lady drivers will have to negotiate the junctions to get onto the ring road.
Fact is, the junctions have been made a hazard by the fact that they incite a cyclist to ride straight over all these junctions without slowing or stopping and more so seen as of late.
I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability? Is it right that years of earned no claims/no accidents should be wiped out due
to no fault of the driver?
As I said in the first post if the cyclists could be seen adequately for drivers to give way to them all would be well but the facts are that cyclists cannot be seen adequately by any driver to be able to give way to at these junctions that is why they would be deemed dangerous by any professional road safety person.
Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
I suppose that ultimately anyone can choose to drive or ride around uninsured, but in the event an accident occurs, and they can be proved to have caused the accident, then they will be liable for their actions. In the above scenario Nottingham County Council have by their own actions increased the risk of injury to both cyclists and motorists, any half decent risk assessment would deem their actions to have increased the risk of an accident between car and bike compared to the road markings before they were changed, and this leaves the council liable for all injuries caused. In terms of the actual injuries caused, I would say that the council has recklessly carried out the changes because they carried out no risk assessment beforehand, which lays them wide open to criminal proceedings by the police - or shall we just wait for someone to die before steps are taken!a very large amount of no claims bonuses throughout their driving years. For instance my wife who I taught to drive in the sixties and has
a totally unblemished record of zero accidents since 1972 and she like hundreds of other careful lady drivers will have to negotiate the junctions to get onto the ring road.
Fact is, the junctions have been made a hazard by the fact that they incite a cyclist to ride straight over all these junctions without slowing or stopping and more so seen as of late.
I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability? Is it right that years of earned no claims/no accidents should be wiped out due
to no fault of the driver?
As I said in the first post if the cyclists could be seen adequately for drivers to give way to them all would be well but the facts are that cyclists cannot be seen adequately by any driver to be able to give way to at these junctions that is why they would be deemed dangerous by any professional road safety person.
Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
As a footnote, surely all UK road layouts, road markings, signs and roundabouts have to be compulsory national standards approved, or be type approved before they can be legally introduced, otherwise what is stopping certain rogue lefty biased and heavily taxpayer funded councils from introducing driving on the wrong side of the road in preparation for future integration into the EU dream?
Mick50NCD said:
All road users have certain rights and also responsibilities. I would ask a question regarding innocent drivers that have earned a very large amount of no claims bonuses throughout their driving years. For instance my wife who I taught to drive in the sixties and has a totally unblemished record of zero accidents since 1972 and she like hundreds of other careful lady drivers will have to negotiate the junctions to get onto the ring road.
If she's so carefaul and safe, she'll have no problem. I've also got a mental image of a Blues Brothers style pile-up cause by your good lady in 1972...
Mick50NCD said:
Fact is, the junctions have been made a hazard by the fact that they incite a cyclist to ride straight over all these junctions without slowing or stopping and more so seen as of late.
I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability?
Yes. In the same way as they would be to blame were a driver to plough through give way lines ONTO the Ring Road and cause a collision. Regardless of the size of road, give way signs mean just that. I'd prefer them to be stop signs to be honest, might be safer for all. I would ask ,is it right that a careful driver will be accused of blame when a cyclist collides with such a drivers' vehicle due to the give way lines which will form an excuse to attribute liability?
Mick50NCD said:
Is it right that years of earned no claims/no accidents should be wiped out due to no fault of the driver?
Check your insurance, but in most cases you'd still have a lot of NCD, and most insurers stop caring after about 8-10 anyway.Mick50NCD said:
As I said in the first post if the cyclists could be seen adequately for drivers to give way to them all would be well but the facts are that cyclists cannot be seen adequately by any driver to be able to give way to at these junctions that is why they would be deemed dangerous by any professional road safety person.
Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
Equality?! It's a give way sign. Somebody has to gave way, it seems you're put out because for once it's the motorist? These signs are trying to improve road safety, and if drivers (and cyclists!) adhere to the give way signs, collisions simply won't happen.Nothing other than the removal of the double give way lines would be acceptable so that equality is reintroduced to promote road safety.
Also, I think you're deliberately confusing "all cyclists" with "some cyclists", and "cannot be seen" with "were not adequately looked for". I agree, there'll probably be collisions, but I disagree with the blame aspect. Standards of road use are generally piss-poor, roads are busier, and things have to change. We won't know what success looks like until we see it - at least the local council is TRYING to make changes (even if they're unpopular - the changes and the knobs at the council!)
Tig----- One thing I've latched onto is that you say the Council are trying to do something! at least! What has been done without good reason is to put as much liability on all motorists wherever possible . No driver can see any approaching cyclist who chooses to not slow down as he approaches the side roads. Many cyclists have now been seen regularly going straight over without looking or slowing. No driver in my long experience can see round corners without a mirror........ One item that Mr Morgan says on his speech on you tube is that he has been in conversation with the militant cyclist who do not want to stop at junctions..........
If that is the case then it has been the militant cyclists who have pressured Mr Morgan into doing what is a blatant degradation of all motorist safety and for that matter pedestrians safety as well because he has little thought for the pedestrians who walk along the ring road but are now having to look out for their safety amongst the cycles that are incited to go more faster than ever before. The path is after all a footpath but was changed from a foot path to that of allowing cyclists to share the footpath with pedestrians. I have always thought it safer for cyclists and especially the young inexperienced ones to ride on the footpath provided they do so responsibly but this has not transpired.
Ironically, many cyclists choose not to use the footpath at all but are seen bombing down the main dual carriageway which of course is their prerogative. Perhaps these riders would rather use the main road don't like the Councils Road Safety designs equally as much as us the motorists !
If that is the case then it has been the militant cyclists who have pressured Mr Morgan into doing what is a blatant degradation of all motorist safety and for that matter pedestrians safety as well because he has little thought for the pedestrians who walk along the ring road but are now having to look out for their safety amongst the cycles that are incited to go more faster than ever before. The path is after all a footpath but was changed from a foot path to that of allowing cyclists to share the footpath with pedestrians. I have always thought it safer for cyclists and especially the young inexperienced ones to ride on the footpath provided they do so responsibly but this has not transpired.
Ironically, many cyclists choose not to use the footpath at all but are seen bombing down the main dual carriageway which of course is their prerogative. Perhaps these riders would rather use the main road don't like the Councils Road Safety designs equally as much as us the motorists !
Mick - I've already said about people cycling down the ring road, it's quicker and safer because of the number of people who drive along the pavements getting out of driveways (the council did at least improve things about 10 years ago by stopping people parking on that shared pavement), and cycling is regularly quicker than driving down the ring road at busy times when it's essentially a giant car park anyway.
Do you slow down when on the ring road passing side roads? Junctions where traffic joining your road has to give way? No, because you've right of way. Treat the cyclists on the pavement (shared cycleway) as if they were cars driving on a parallel road that you MUST give way to - which is essntially the situation we have. In fact, go further, treat them as LORRIES that you must give way too. Then you'll see why your "I can't see them" argument is fallacious. If you can't see the road to be clear at a give way, you STOP, and wait until you can see it is safe to proceed. It's simple, you do this, there'll be no accident. You don't, and there's an accident, it's your fault.
I fully agree that it's probably not the safest solution (I don't know what the best solution would be), but I think your opinion that this is such a dangerous change is based upon the fact that you don't wish to cede ground to other users of the public highway.
Do you slow down when on the ring road passing side roads? Junctions where traffic joining your road has to give way? No, because you've right of way. Treat the cyclists on the pavement (shared cycleway) as if they were cars driving on a parallel road that you MUST give way to - which is essntially the situation we have. In fact, go further, treat them as LORRIES that you must give way too. Then you'll see why your "I can't see them" argument is fallacious. If you can't see the road to be clear at a give way, you STOP, and wait until you can see it is safe to proceed. It's simple, you do this, there'll be no accident. You don't, and there's an accident, it's your fault.
I fully agree that it's probably not the safest solution (I don't know what the best solution would be), but I think your opinion that this is such a dangerous change is based upon the fact that you don't wish to cede ground to other users of the public highway.
Tigger I've read your post and must say you have not read my posts with the utmost care ( as one would drive at all times to achieve
a no accident status for 54 years). It seems that you have not driven along all the side roads towards the Middleton Boulevard as I and also
many of the residents here who are upset that such stupidity can be forthcoming on the subject of road safety.
I wager that it will not be too long before a higher authority than the nutters who have designed these junctions have them altered so that
there is no give priority to anyone. You say that cyclists who are riding on the footpath have the same status as traffic that is travelling on the ring road which is not true.
You say that the cars parked on the ring road obstruct the pathway. This may well have happened on the odd occasion but to say it's a massive car park is ludicrous because it is not. In any case the council stopped all parking right along the ring road about 6 years ago because they hate cars and because they are the type who like to see what people are doing and stop them from doing it. That applies to anything apart from cyclists or a tram user.
Yesterday I saw a cyclist with no hands on the bars cycling willy nilly along the footpath. You seem to ignore the fact that I said, it's safe for cyclists to use the shared footpath but I must add to that, many of them do not know which side their bread is buttered.Cyclists are privileged in being able to share the footpath but they are not satisfied with that & want more at the expense of all other road users which is wrong & not fair.
You contradict the facts that drivers cannot see adequately anything that may be coming into the path of that motorist & that is why the situation must be an equal give way not one sided.
Another anomaly is that Oundle Drive has no give way to cyclists whatsoever. I wonder why that is? Is it maybe because there are many powerful residents who live on that road & I feel it would be a serious matter if the Council do something which is detrimental to
those particular residents so there fore the Council are shying away from doing something stupid as they have done further down the road where the residents are no where near as powerful.
I hope if you reply you will have seen for yourself the exact situation as it is because if you condone these ridiculous junctions you may be one of them & therefore will refute whatever is right and correct in any event. This will of course be because of not being in possession of a shred of experience, knowledge or expertise in the subject of road safety.
a no accident status for 54 years). It seems that you have not driven along all the side roads towards the Middleton Boulevard as I and also
many of the residents here who are upset that such stupidity can be forthcoming on the subject of road safety.
I wager that it will not be too long before a higher authority than the nutters who have designed these junctions have them altered so that
there is no give priority to anyone. You say that cyclists who are riding on the footpath have the same status as traffic that is travelling on the ring road which is not true.
You say that the cars parked on the ring road obstruct the pathway. This may well have happened on the odd occasion but to say it's a massive car park is ludicrous because it is not. In any case the council stopped all parking right along the ring road about 6 years ago because they hate cars and because they are the type who like to see what people are doing and stop them from doing it. That applies to anything apart from cyclists or a tram user.
Yesterday I saw a cyclist with no hands on the bars cycling willy nilly along the footpath. You seem to ignore the fact that I said, it's safe for cyclists to use the shared footpath but I must add to that, many of them do not know which side their bread is buttered.Cyclists are privileged in being able to share the footpath but they are not satisfied with that & want more at the expense of all other road users which is wrong & not fair.
You contradict the facts that drivers cannot see adequately anything that may be coming into the path of that motorist & that is why the situation must be an equal give way not one sided.
Another anomaly is that Oundle Drive has no give way to cyclists whatsoever. I wonder why that is? Is it maybe because there are many powerful residents who live on that road & I feel it would be a serious matter if the Council do something which is detrimental to
those particular residents so there fore the Council are shying away from doing something stupid as they have done further down the road where the residents are no where near as powerful.
I hope if you reply you will have seen for yourself the exact situation as it is because if you condone these ridiculous junctions you may be one of them & therefore will refute whatever is right and correct in any event. This will of course be because of not being in possession of a shred of experience, knowledge or expertise in the subject of road safety.
Mick50NCD said:
Cyclists are privileged in being able to share the footpath but they are not satisfied with that & want more at the expense of all other road users which is wrong & not fair.
How on earth do you come to that conclusion? British cyclists have almost nothing in comparison with their European counterparts. Is that fair? When they do get some infrastructure it's generally rubbish (as you appear to be confirming with the scheme you're discussing) and will differ entirely from anything else that can be seen in Northern Europe.Is that fair?As a driver (and not a cyclist)I remain astonished how much money gets spent on motorists (which only ever seems to generate more traffic and congestion) and how badly any other traveller fares, be it with public transport or provisions for cyclists.
Usable provision for cyclists remains at rock bottom here in the UK, yet still the incredibly selfish average British motorists complain *bitterly* on lengthy posts on forums.
Don't go to anywhere else in northern Europe mate. You'll explode.
I am more concerned what is happening here on my doorstep so to speak not europe which I never mentioned. The cyclists in Nottingham have plenty spent on them as they have Mr Morgan (you tube) who will confirm £6 mil has been given them. to lavish on cycle paths.
What I am concerned about as any decent person would be a a complete lack of road sense. What can one expect from a 23 year old who is supposed to be a senior road safety planner for the City of Nottingham.
Anyone disbelieving the fact that drivers cannot see cyclists approaching these junctions I have brought into the public eye should see them for themselves before any comment as to the pros and cons about this serious subject.
There will be a petition as well as other very necessary actions against these ridiculous alterations as apparently these junctions are supposed to be experimental.
What that means is see if someone is maimed or killed or otherwise an accident involving a cyclist running into a car & then see if the
cyclist is successful in obtaining costs & damages from the car driver.
Please note that I am not against cyclists in any way on the proviso they ride responsibly. What I despise are the ones who ride without holding the bars weave from inside to outside of traffic at will, wheelies and scrape by my motor and others inside when there is not sufficient room to do that then go over the red light to boot. This all happens all the time........... No blame status never never never-
not nohow.
What I am concerned about as any decent person would be a a complete lack of road sense. What can one expect from a 23 year old who is supposed to be a senior road safety planner for the City of Nottingham.
Anyone disbelieving the fact that drivers cannot see cyclists approaching these junctions I have brought into the public eye should see them for themselves before any comment as to the pros and cons about this serious subject.
There will be a petition as well as other very necessary actions against these ridiculous alterations as apparently these junctions are supposed to be experimental.
What that means is see if someone is maimed or killed or otherwise an accident involving a cyclist running into a car & then see if the
cyclist is successful in obtaining costs & damages from the car driver.
Please note that I am not against cyclists in any way on the proviso they ride responsibly. What I despise are the ones who ride without holding the bars weave from inside to outside of traffic at will, wheelies and scrape by my motor and others inside when there is not sufficient room to do that then go over the red light to boot. This all happens all the time........... No blame status never never never-
not nohow.
Mick50NCD said:
I am more concerned what is happening here on my doorstep so to speak not europe which I never mentioned. The cyclists in Nottingham have plenty spent on them as they have Mr Morgan (you tube) who will confirm £6 mil has been given them. to lavish on cycle paths.
What I am concerned about as any decent person would be a a complete lack of road sense. What can one expect from a 23 year old who is supposed to be a senior road safety planner for the City of Nottingham.
Anyone disbelieving the fact that drivers cannot see cyclists approaching these junctions I have brought into the public eye should see them for themselves before any comment as to the pros and cons about this serious subject.
There will be a petition as well as other very necessary actions against these ridiculous alterations as apparently these junctions are supposed to be experimental.
What that means is see if someone is maimed or killed or otherwise an accident involving a cyclist running into a car & then see if the
cyclist is successful in obtaining costs & damages from the car driver.
Please note that I am not against cyclists in any way on the proviso they ride responsibly. What I despise are the ones who ride without holding the bars weave from inside to outside of traffic at will, wheelies and scrape by my motor and others inside when there is not sufficient room to do that then go over the red light to boot. This all happens all the time........... No blame status never never never-
not nohow.
Your doorstep is in Europe. However, the cyclists in Nottingham get massively less infrastructure than other cyclists do but you say they get too much and it's not fair. I ask you to quantify that, bearing in mind that money wasted by councils isn't evidence of anything. What I am concerned about as any decent person would be a a complete lack of road sense. What can one expect from a 23 year old who is supposed to be a senior road safety planner for the City of Nottingham.
Anyone disbelieving the fact that drivers cannot see cyclists approaching these junctions I have brought into the public eye should see them for themselves before any comment as to the pros and cons about this serious subject.
There will be a petition as well as other very necessary actions against these ridiculous alterations as apparently these junctions are supposed to be experimental.
What that means is see if someone is maimed or killed or otherwise an accident involving a cyclist running into a car & then see if the
cyclist is successful in obtaining costs & damages from the car driver.
Please note that I am not against cyclists in any way on the proviso they ride responsibly. What I despise are the ones who ride without holding the bars weave from inside to outside of traffic at will, wheelies and scrape by my motor and others inside when there is not sufficient room to do that then go over the red light to boot. This all happens all the time........... No blame status never never never-
not nohow.
Mick50NCD said:
Tigger I've read your post and must say you have not read my posts with the utmost care ( as one would drive at all times to achieve
a no accident status for 54 years). It seems that you have not driven along all the side roads towards the Middleton Boulevard as I and also
many of the residents here who are upset that such stupidity can be forthcoming on the subject of road safety.
I wager that it will not be too long before a higher authority than the nutters who have designed these junctions have them altered so that
there is no give priority to anyone. You say that cyclists who are riding on the footpath have the same status as traffic that is travelling on the ring road which is not true.
You say that the cars parked on the ring road obstruct the pathway. This may well have happened on the odd occasion but to say it's a massive car park is ludicrous because it is not. In any case the council stopped all parking right along the ring road about 6 years ago because they hate cars and because they are the type who like to see what people are doing and stop them from doing it. That applies to anything apart from cyclists or a tram user.
Yesterday I saw a cyclist with no hands on the bars cycling willy nilly along the footpath. You seem to ignore the fact that I said, it's safe for cyclists to use the shared footpath but I must add to that, many of them do not know which side their bread is buttered.Cyclists are privileged in being able to share the footpath but they are not satisfied with that & want more at the expense of all other road users which is wrong & not fair.
You contradict the facts that drivers cannot see adequately anything that may be coming into the path of that motorist & that is why the situation must be an equal give way not one sided.
Another anomaly is that Oundle Drive has no give way to cyclists whatsoever. I wonder why that is? Is it maybe because there are many powerful residents who live on that road & I feel it would be a serious matter if the Council do something which is detrimental to
those particular residents so there fore the Council are shying away from doing something stupid as they have done further down the road where the residents are no where near as powerful.
I hope if you reply you will have seen for yourself the exact situation as it is because if you condone these ridiculous junctions you may be one of them & therefore will refute whatever is right and correct in any event. This will of course be because of not being in possession of a shred of experience, knowledge or expertise in the subject of road safety.
I've tried to read your posts carefully Mick - they're a bit rambly and hard to follow. However, I can see you've misread / misundestood / misinterpreted mine too. a no accident status for 54 years). It seems that you have not driven along all the side roads towards the Middleton Boulevard as I and also
many of the residents here who are upset that such stupidity can be forthcoming on the subject of road safety.
I wager that it will not be too long before a higher authority than the nutters who have designed these junctions have them altered so that
there is no give priority to anyone. You say that cyclists who are riding on the footpath have the same status as traffic that is travelling on the ring road which is not true.
You say that the cars parked on the ring road obstruct the pathway. This may well have happened on the odd occasion but to say it's a massive car park is ludicrous because it is not. In any case the council stopped all parking right along the ring road about 6 years ago because they hate cars and because they are the type who like to see what people are doing and stop them from doing it. That applies to anything apart from cyclists or a tram user.
Yesterday I saw a cyclist with no hands on the bars cycling willy nilly along the footpath. You seem to ignore the fact that I said, it's safe for cyclists to use the shared footpath but I must add to that, many of them do not know which side their bread is buttered.Cyclists are privileged in being able to share the footpath but they are not satisfied with that & want more at the expense of all other road users which is wrong & not fair.
You contradict the facts that drivers cannot see adequately anything that may be coming into the path of that motorist & that is why the situation must be an equal give way not one sided.
Another anomaly is that Oundle Drive has no give way to cyclists whatsoever. I wonder why that is? Is it maybe because there are many powerful residents who live on that road & I feel it would be a serious matter if the Council do something which is detrimental to
those particular residents so there fore the Council are shying away from doing something stupid as they have done further down the road where the residents are no where near as powerful.
I hope if you reply you will have seen for yourself the exact situation as it is because if you condone these ridiculous junctions you may be one of them & therefore will refute whatever is right and correct in any event. This will of course be because of not being in possession of a shred of experience, knowledge or expertise in the subject of road safety.
You also cannot have driven along ALL of the sideroads towards the ringroad recently, as many are one-way...but that's irrelevant. I'm aware of the area, and the roads in question, and pass there often enough (car / bike / on foot).
The "car park" reference was to the Ring Road itself (not a reference to pavement parking), a VERY congested stretch of road. You're right that the on-pavement parking was banned by the council a while ago (I said 10 years, you think 6) but that still doesn't stop people driving along the pavement as they emerge (usually backwards!) from their driveways.
For you to say that the cyclists on the shared footpath don't have the same status as cars on the ring-road itself is both troublesome and worrying. It comes across as a massive superiority thing, and I believe you're wrong. At the point of a car approaching the give way (on the side-road), the position is pretty much the exact (mirored) position as for a bike emerging from the side road wishing to cross the ring road. You MUST give way to other traffic.
You're also making a massive generalisation to say it's safe for cyclists to use shared footpaths - and then proving yourself to be wrong by talking (at length) about how drivers will struggle to give-way when turning into sideroads. You've then categorically ignored my point about just treating the give-way as a "STOP" sign if you cannot see the way ahead to be clear. For such a self-declared "careful" driver, it's surprising that you think a give way sign will cause so many problems!
I'm not disagreeing with you at all that the local council are a bunch of car-hating nutters, but the road situation in Nottingham does need to change.
Heebeegeetee you must be anti car as well as the council because I see you told a lie which you miss quote me as
regards you say I said cyclists get too much( a lie) what I did say they get plenty spent on them. It really does not matter how
much the authorities spend on them but what is spent should certainly not be spent on degrading motorists existance
whereby minority pressure groups want motorists off the road. This ideology is in some instances dangerous whether it is
deemed to be the motorists fault or the cyclists.
As I said before Keith Peat has an excellent CV on the subject of road safety for all road users but there are many who rubbish
his knowledge out of hand but in doing that in many instances they expose themselves as cranks.
It must be made clear to all road users that ideology must not be allowed to override road safety. As things are going the last 30 odd years common sense is lacking in the UK as no doubt it prevails because the opposite occurs to reasonably debated outcome which Keith Peat says will not transpire because reasonable debate as per road safety has long gone. In other words which you will not agree with is that a load of nutters are in charge of road safety.
One quote I made to a well meaning 'cycle teacher' is that if the cycling pressure groups carry on as they do at present they will never come near my 54 years NCD. This is of course because some of their ideas are simply wrong.
regards you say I said cyclists get too much( a lie) what I did say they get plenty spent on them. It really does not matter how
much the authorities spend on them but what is spent should certainly not be spent on degrading motorists existance
whereby minority pressure groups want motorists off the road. This ideology is in some instances dangerous whether it is
deemed to be the motorists fault or the cyclists.
As I said before Keith Peat has an excellent CV on the subject of road safety for all road users but there are many who rubbish
his knowledge out of hand but in doing that in many instances they expose themselves as cranks.
It must be made clear to all road users that ideology must not be allowed to override road safety. As things are going the last 30 odd years common sense is lacking in the UK as no doubt it prevails because the opposite occurs to reasonably debated outcome which Keith Peat says will not transpire because reasonable debate as per road safety has long gone. In other words which you will not agree with is that a load of nutters are in charge of road safety.
One quote I made to a well meaning 'cycle teacher' is that if the cycling pressure groups carry on as they do at present they will never come near my 54 years NCD. This is of course because some of their ideas are simply wrong.
Tigger1 I will not get into a personal argument with you but I see you say things that simply are not true. I am fully aware what is going on around this estate 100%. I have lived around here 64 years and for a very long time cyclist have ridden on the ring road pavement
which as I have said is safer than on the road itself. If anyone on a bike cannot see that being away from the traffic on any road is not a safer proposition than riding amongst the traffic they do not see danger as I do.
Perception is a very big plus for a driver to have but sadly many individuals do not possess that attribute. If one has perception it may well prevent them dying in a road accident.
The two one way roads are Sutton Passeys Cres and Hawton Cres which are one way roads near the Main Park Gate on the Wollaton Park Estate which was partly council estate. Harrow Rd is one way onto Middleton Bvd but has never been part council as is Oundle drive
( two way).
My post is accurate in respect that I said that no motorist can adequately see an approaching cyclist or running pedestrian that chooses
not to slow or stop when crossing these side road junctions. To suggest any other senario is a lie. It is obvious that due to any motorist not being able to see said road user, that reasoning should negate what has happened re the road markings and the instructions the road markings give to the driver.
Any road user not understanding this straightforward subject and in particular not seeing the road junctions for themselves should not comment at all.
If a driver has not run into any thing or any body in 54 years of driving I would have thought this would advertise the fact that such drivers are indeed careful drivers and are mindful of all other road users around them. It may be good luck some would say for that to happen but I personally do not think luck has very much to do with 'it'. We'll just have to see what happens re these ridiculously designed junctions which I'm told are experimental.
which as I have said is safer than on the road itself. If anyone on a bike cannot see that being away from the traffic on any road is not a safer proposition than riding amongst the traffic they do not see danger as I do.
Perception is a very big plus for a driver to have but sadly many individuals do not possess that attribute. If one has perception it may well prevent them dying in a road accident.
The two one way roads are Sutton Passeys Cres and Hawton Cres which are one way roads near the Main Park Gate on the Wollaton Park Estate which was partly council estate. Harrow Rd is one way onto Middleton Bvd but has never been part council as is Oundle drive
( two way).
My post is accurate in respect that I said that no motorist can adequately see an approaching cyclist or running pedestrian that chooses
not to slow or stop when crossing these side road junctions. To suggest any other senario is a lie. It is obvious that due to any motorist not being able to see said road user, that reasoning should negate what has happened re the road markings and the instructions the road markings give to the driver.
Any road user not understanding this straightforward subject and in particular not seeing the road junctions for themselves should not comment at all.
If a driver has not run into any thing or any body in 54 years of driving I would have thought this would advertise the fact that such drivers are indeed careful drivers and are mindful of all other road users around them. It may be good luck some would say for that to happen but I personally do not think luck has very much to do with 'it'. We'll just have to see what happens re these ridiculously designed junctions which I'm told are experimental.
Mick50NCD said:
Heebeegeetee you must be anti car as well as the council because I see you told a lie which you miss quote me as
regards you say I said cyclists get too much( a lie) what I did say they get plenty spent on them. It really does not matter how
much the authorities spend on them but what is spent should certainly not be spent on degrading motorists existance
whereby minority pressure groups want motorists off the road. This ideology is in some instances dangerous whether it is
deemed to be the motorists fault or the cyclists.
Why shouldn't other road users have a bit more toward their fair share? As car drivers we already have far more than other European drivers, what is so special about uk drivers that the excess they get comes at direct cost of other road users?regards you say I said cyclists get too much( a lie) what I did say they get plenty spent on them. It really does not matter how
much the authorities spend on them but what is spent should certainly not be spent on degrading motorists existance
whereby minority pressure groups want motorists off the road. This ideology is in some instances dangerous whether it is
deemed to be the motorists fault or the cyclists.
As I said, not very far from Nottingham (half a day's drive) cycle use is at 10, 20 and 30 times that of Nottingham. What is bad or dangerous about that?
The council might be wasting tons of money, that's what councils excel at but that's nowt to do with cyclists. It's like blaming drivers for poor road design.
heebeegeebee look you have gone right off topic as I never said anything about nore am I interested in the differences between what they do in EU and here in the UK. Incidentally I've towed a trailer past Milan a few times and as I know how they drive over there right to Crete & I would wager a cyclist would be wiped off the road over there if they ride as some do here.
As I said I am not against cyclists in any way whatsoever but as of 15 minutes ago I a young stupid lady cyclist came straight over from my right from this blind junction (Selston Drive) without slowing whatsoever.
This was incited by the stupid idiot who has given these irresponsible cyclists the go ahead to bomb straight across these junctions and in this case it is particularly ridiculous because the angle is oblique with no chance of being able to see left and right as to whether one can proceed whether on motorbike car or cycle or even walking. The designer is completely off his rocker. They all need sectioning who prescribed this ludicrous situation.
As I said I am not against cyclists in any way whatsoever but as of 15 minutes ago I a young stupid lady cyclist came straight over from my right from this blind junction (Selston Drive) without slowing whatsoever.
This was incited by the stupid idiot who has given these irresponsible cyclists the go ahead to bomb straight across these junctions and in this case it is particularly ridiculous because the angle is oblique with no chance of being able to see left and right as to whether one can proceed whether on motorbike car or cycle or even walking. The designer is completely off his rocker. They all need sectioning who prescribed this ludicrous situation.
Mick50NCD said:
heebeegeebee look you have gone right off topic as I never said anything about nore am I interested in the differences between what they do in EU and here in the UK. Incidentally I've towed a trailer past Milan a few times and as I know how they drive over there right to Crete & I would wager a cyclist would be wiped off the road over there if they ride as some do here.
As I said I am not against cyclists in any way whatsoever but as of 15 minutes ago I a young stupid lady cyclist came straight over from my right from this blind junction (Selston Drive) without slowing whatsoever.
This was incited by the stupid idiot who has given these irresponsible cyclists the go ahead to bomb straight across these junctions and in this case it is particularly ridiculous because the angle is oblique with no chance of being able to see left and right as to whether one can proceed whether on motorbike car or cycle or even walking. The designer is completely off his rocker. They all need sectioning who prescribed this ludicrous situation.
That's all fair enough, but earlier you made comments about cycling which is what I was addressing.As I said I am not against cyclists in any way whatsoever but as of 15 minutes ago I a young stupid lady cyclist came straight over from my right from this blind junction (Selston Drive) without slowing whatsoever.
This was incited by the stupid idiot who has given these irresponsible cyclists the go ahead to bomb straight across these junctions and in this case it is particularly ridiculous because the angle is oblique with no chance of being able to see left and right as to whether one can proceed whether on motorbike car or cycle or even walking. The designer is completely off his rocker. They all need sectioning who prescribed this ludicrous situation.
Wouldn't mind seeing pics or links of the junctions you describe.
I won't write a lengthy post on this occasion only to say that if all drivers had a decent sense of humor as I towards cyclists and cyclists had the same goodwill towards drivers all would be well but this is not the case and never will be whilst some drivers and some cyclist will not or feel they cannot drive/ride in a responsible manner.
Regarding the young lady cyclist and those who ride same as her in an irresponsible manner they will get hurt but they fully deserve that happening to them.
It has always been bandied about that it is never the road engineering that causes accidents but the blame is always on the driver but in the case of these junctions it is the engineering that will cause accidents because as I have already truthfully said it is the inexperience & lack of a professional road safety
operative overseeing these junctions. No one but no one should comment on these junctions without seeing them.
Regarding the young lady cyclist and those who ride same as her in an irresponsible manner they will get hurt but they fully deserve that happening to them.
It has always been bandied about that it is never the road engineering that causes accidents but the blame is always on the driver but in the case of these junctions it is the engineering that will cause accidents because as I have already truthfully said it is the inexperience & lack of a professional road safety
operative overseeing these junctions. No one but no one should comment on these junctions without seeing them.
Mick50NCD said:
I won't write a lengthy post on this occasion only to say that if all drivers had a decent sense of humor as I towards cyclists and cyclists had the same goodwill towards drivers all would be well but this is not the case and never will be whilst some drivers and some cyclist will not or feel they cannot drive/ride in a responsible manner.
Regarding the young lady cyclist and those who ride same as her in an irresponsible manner they will get hurt but they fully deserve that happening to them.
It has always been bandied about that it is never the road engineering that causes accidents but the blame is always on the driver but in the case of these junctions it is the engineering that will cause accidents because as I have already truthfully said it is the inexperience & lack of a professional road safety
operative overseeing these junctions. No one but no one should comment on these junctions without seeing them.
Well show us them then.Regarding the young lady cyclist and those who ride same as her in an irresponsible manner they will get hurt but they fully deserve that happening to them.
It has always been bandied about that it is never the road engineering that causes accidents but the blame is always on the driver but in the case of these junctions it is the engineering that will cause accidents because as I have already truthfully said it is the inexperience & lack of a professional road safety
operative overseeing these junctions. No one but no one should comment on these junctions without seeing them.
I'll have a word with next door who is a computer programmer as I am not absolutely clear re uploading
the explicit photos I have of all these junctions. This will not happen immediately but it will happen.
Don't tell me you live 100 miles away from here so that I would wonder why the interest in something that is applicable to Nottingham. I do realize though that these dangerous junctions like the workplace parking levy which attacked working drivers may well gain momentum when the Authority realizes that no challenge is made on them therefore the hassle will continue here and further afield.
the explicit photos I have of all these junctions. This will not happen immediately but it will happen.
Don't tell me you live 100 miles away from here so that I would wonder why the interest in something that is applicable to Nottingham. I do realize though that these dangerous junctions like the workplace parking levy which attacked working drivers may well gain momentum when the Authority realizes that no challenge is made on them therefore the hassle will continue here and further afield.
Gassing Station | Midlands | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff