Nothing gained

York Press: Nothing gained Nothing gained

JAMES ALEXANDER (Letters, February 15) stated that Labour had disagreed with the LibDems spending £500,000 on the Clifton Green cycle lane and had reversed this.

On July 10, 2008, opposition Labour councillors in Clifton and Holgate issued a statement welcoming the Clifton Green facility, and said that they had suggested it six years earlier in 2002. One Clifton councillor, David Scott, emphasised the safety benefits for cyclists.

Unfortunately the issue soon became a cause celebre in ensuing local elections, and Labour rapidly reversed its position to court the car-user vote. Labour back in power quickly ignored an officer’s recommendation to retain the existing arrangement on safety grounds. Instead they spent a significant sum of council tax income to undo the scheme.

And what has James’ steamroller decision making achieved? In the peak period, nothing. We still have significant vehicle queues along Water End.

The filter lane is often wholly or almost empty as tailbacks block its entry point. Rejoining the main carriageway is a safety lottery for cyclists, as is reaching their “green box” at the head of the queue.

York’s Cycling City reputation is sadly eroded when megaphone politics override common sense.

Paul Hepworth, Windmill Rise, Holgate, York.

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:34am Thu 20 Feb 14

joewatt says...

That's rubbish - the filter lane has succeeded in facilitating the left turn and reducing the tailback. True - queuing traffic sometimes blocks access to the filter lane. The answer to this is to remove a bit more cycle lane to allow entry to the filter lane further back. Traffic exists Paul and it must flow.
That's rubbish - the filter lane has succeeded in facilitating the left turn and reducing the tailback. True - queuing traffic sometimes blocks access to the filter lane. The answer to this is to remove a bit more cycle lane to allow entry to the filter lane further back. Traffic exists Paul and it must flow. joewatt
  • Score: 43

4:02pm Thu 20 Feb 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Paul you need to realise that York will never be a cyclists paradise.

I know that when you purchased your tandem, you probably had dreams of an open road with your doppelgänger on the back peddling for all she's worth.

But sadly you were sold a pup, the roads are no longer like that.

The cycle path has gone, the carriage works have gone, and so has most of the bikes in York.

Get over it.
Paul you need to realise that York will never be a cyclists paradise. I know that when you purchased your tandem, you probably had dreams of an open road with your doppelgänger on the back peddling for all she's worth. But sadly you were sold a pup, the roads are no longer like that. The cycle path has gone, the carriage works have gone, and so has most of the bikes in York. Get over it. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: -21

4:25pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Jazzper says...

Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.
Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir. Jazzper
  • Score: -18

5:48pm Thu 20 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

Jazzper wrote:
Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.
That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!!
[quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.[/p][/quote]That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!! CaroleBaines
  • Score: -34

8:05pm Thu 20 Feb 14

wallman says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.
That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!!
another poor tree hugger that wont come in to the 21st century
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.[/p][/quote]That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!![/p][/quote]another poor tree hugger that wont come in to the 21st century wallman
  • Score: 31

8:23pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

wallman wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
Jazzper wrote:
Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.
That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!!
another poor tree hugger that wont come in to the 21st century
No I think it's called taking the P**S, Paul is a treasure and I look forward to his comments as he's so predicable and he makes me laugh!, in fact have you ever thought of changing your name paul to predictablepaul?
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jazzper[/bold] wrote: Mr Hepworth, you single handed have done more to erode the reputation of Yorks cyclists than any politicians or their parties. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself sir.[/p][/quote]That is a bit rough. I may not always agree with Paul, but his comments are at least considered, researched, often self-deprecating and always politely put. In my view that makes him something to be treasured on here!![/p][/quote]another poor tree hugger that wont come in to the 21st century[/p][/quote]No I think it's called taking the P**S, Paul is a treasure and I look forward to his comments as he's so predicable and he makes me laugh!, in fact have you ever thought of changing your name paul to predictablepaul? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -29

2:30am Fri 21 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

joewatt wrote:
That's rubbish - the filter lane has succeeded in facilitating the left turn and reducing the tailback. True - queuing traffic sometimes blocks access to the filter lane. The answer to this is to remove a bit more cycle lane to allow entry to the filter lane further back. Traffic exists Paul and it must flow.
So by using your theory, every road would be a dual carriageway in the city, as we'd just keep rolling back the pavements and verges more and more because "traffic must flow". A line in the sand has to be drawn - and when Water End was first changed for the better, the change was made because only 20% of traffic at the red light was waiting to go left in the filter lane, if that... but as soon as the teeniest tiniest bit of road space was removed in favour of 'those 2 wheeled lycra-clad menaces', as cyclists often get called, then suddenly even people who never use that road all started shouting and throwing their weight around as if they paid tolls to use the road or something.
[quote][p][bold]joewatt[/bold] wrote: That's rubbish - the filter lane has succeeded in facilitating the left turn and reducing the tailback. True - queuing traffic sometimes blocks access to the filter lane. The answer to this is to remove a bit more cycle lane to allow entry to the filter lane further back. Traffic exists Paul and it must flow.[/p][/quote]So by using your theory, every road would be a dual carriageway in the city, as we'd just keep rolling back the pavements and verges more and more because "traffic must flow". A line in the sand has to be drawn - and when Water End was first changed for the better, the change was made because only 20% of traffic at the red light was waiting to go left in the filter lane, if that... but as soon as the teeniest tiniest bit of road space was removed in favour of 'those 2 wheeled lycra-clad menaces', as cyclists often get called, then suddenly even people who never use that road all started shouting and throwing their weight around as if they paid tolls to use the road or something. Magicman!
  • Score: -3

2:36am Fri 21 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

And what has James’ steamroller decision making achieved? In the peak period, nothing.

Not totally accurate, Paul... because the council changed the timings of the traffic lights 2 days before removing the cycle lane - the thought being to deceive everybody into thinking their £12,000 spent removing 20m of cycle lane was the silver bullet to get rid of congestion along Water End (and judging by 'joewatt's comments, they succeed)... BUT by giving 30 seconds more time on green for Water End, the congestion has shifted 90 degrees clockwise, to Shipton Road inbound. Before the cycle lane was removed, traffic queues along there in the afternoon peak went to the golf course - but now the queue has grown by at least 40% and well exceeds Clifton Park Drive on most days. And there's no cycle lane to remove along there, so the only fix is to reverse the traffic light timings and show everybody once and for all that removing that bitof cycle lane on water end did absolutely nothing except waste £12,000 taxpayers money.
[quote]And what has James’ steamroller decision making achieved? In the peak period, nothing.[/quote] Not totally accurate, Paul... because the council changed the timings of the traffic lights 2 days before removing the cycle lane - the thought being to deceive everybody into thinking their £12,000 spent removing 20m of cycle lane was the silver bullet to get rid of congestion along Water End (and judging by 'joewatt's comments, they succeed)... BUT by giving 30 seconds more time on green for Water End, the congestion has shifted 90 degrees clockwise, to Shipton Road inbound. Before the cycle lane was removed, traffic queues along there in the afternoon peak went to the golf course - but now the queue has grown by at least 40% and well exceeds Clifton Park Drive on most days. And there's no cycle lane to remove along there, so the only fix is to reverse the traffic light timings and show everybody once and for all that removing that bitof cycle lane on water end did absolutely nothing except waste £12,000 taxpayers money. Magicman!
  • Score: -4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree