Travelling solutions

Travelling solutions

Travelling solutions

First published in Letters by

YET again we have been subjected to more deluded anti-car rubbish from Paul Hepworth and Jim McGurn (Letters, February 20).

The reason for Water End becoming more congested again is because of the lunatic closure of Lendal Bridge.

The reduction to single lane on Water End was a complete disaster which was only partly corrected.

It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.

Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators who seem to think owning a car is a crime.

How would you like it if you had bought an expensive new bike only to be told you couldn’t use it?

The only way forward is for the A1237 to be dualled, railway stations opened at Haxby, Strensall and Copmanthorpe – and get rid of congestion-causing bendy buses, along with the NRM’S road train.

Ian Foster, Hawthorne Avenue, Haxby, York.
 

• PAUL HEPWORTH implies that the reinstallation of the filter lane at Clifton Green lights has been a failure due to the still significant vehicle queues along Water End.

The reason for the empty filter lane at the lights and still significant queues are due to the concrete ramp left in place at the end of the cycle path that blocks the road, thus stopping traffic from getting into the filter lane to turn right.

Tony Feetenby, Burdyke Avenue, Clifton, York.


• A NUMBER of activists in York are constantly campaigning. I am sure they have our best interests at heart, but they are not listening.

Jim McGurn’s letter of February 20 refers to “the small number of reactionary gentlemen who write sneering letters”. Does he not read the letters page objectively and note that the “few” who criticise the closing of Lendal Bridge to traffic far outnumber those in favour?

Similarly, Paul Hepworth states that the reversal of the nonsensical alteration to the traffic system at Clifton Green has not changed the congestion.

Actually, the congestion was halved at a stroke and it is only since the council tinkered with Lendal Bridge that the waiting returned.

I am not against cycling for those who want it. But judging by the emptiness of the cycle lanes, there are not so many. So why spend so much?

Coun Dave Merrett seems intent on pushing us on to buses. Buses are expensive and take large subsidies from council coffers. Parking charges are high in York, but even so it is often cheaper to drive in than catch a bus.

Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.

Bob Redwood, Main Street, Askham Bryan, York.

 

• JIM MCGURN states that only a small number of reactionary gentleman write against the closure of Lendal Bridge. Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).

Such people think that banning all cars and lorries would make the world a better place. Well, how would people go shopping and how would deliveries be made?

Most people in York are against the closure of Lendal Bridge.

Here is what City of York Council should do. Reopen all the railway stations and track around York so people have other ways into the city and then have a congestion charge to pay for them if they drive in.

That’s the way forward. People won’t complain if there are other ways to get into York. If the station at Haxby was reopened, I would use it all the time.

That is forward planning, not what the council is doing now.

Mark Ringrose, Hawthorn Avenue, Haxby.

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:55pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

What a selection of letters...

Ian Foster wrote:
It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.
The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive.

Ian Foster wrote:
Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators
There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened?
I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed.

Mark Ringrose wrote:
Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).
Unbelievably stupid thing to say.

Bob Redwood wrote
Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.
Phew! Finally something rooted in sense.
Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away.
Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations"
What a selection of letters... [quote]Ian Foster wrote: It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.[/quote] The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive. [quote]Ian Foster wrote: Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators[/quote] There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened? I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed. [quote]Mark Ringrose wrote: Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).[/quote] Unbelievably stupid thing to say. [quote]Bob Redwood wrote[/quote] Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.[/quote] Phew! Finally something rooted in sense. Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away. Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Shame the quote /quote isn't working on this page.
Shame the quote /quote isn't working on this page. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -8

3:46pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Badgers Drift says...

Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ?

Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ?

The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process.

I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.
Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ? Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ? The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process. I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal. Badgers Drift
  • Score: -8

7:18pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Dr Robert says...

Mr McGurn needs to remember he relies on Lorries and transit vans to deliver his cycles to Hospital Fields road. With reference to Mr Feetenby's letter , you are correct in saying the concrete ramp on the approach to Water Lane Traffic lights is still there and stopping traffic getting around the corner, this is one of James Alexanders lies in saying his party had reinstated the area back to how it was, he obviously does not check work that he orders to be done has been carried out.
Mr McGurn needs to remember he relies on Lorries and transit vans to deliver his cycles to Hospital Fields road. With reference to Mr Feetenby's letter , you are correct in saying the concrete ramp on the approach to Water Lane Traffic lights is still there and stopping traffic getting around the corner, this is one of James Alexanders lies in saying his party had reinstated the area back to how it was, he obviously does not check work that he orders to be done has been carried out. Dr Robert
  • Score: -4

8:03pm Sat 22 Feb 14

bolero says...

Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so.
Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so. bolero
  • Score: -8

12:27am Sun 23 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious.

Let's get the bridge open again.

I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.
I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious. Let's get the bridge open again. I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -7

12:59am Sun 23 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Mark Ringrose
Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).

loaded language designed to get a reaction. Sadly, The Press prints this tripe.
Mark Ringrose [quote]Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world). [/quote] loaded language designed to get a reaction. Sadly, The Press prints this tripe. Magicman!
  • Score: 19

1:06am Sun 23 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ?

Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ?

The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process.

I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.
most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ? Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ? The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process. I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.[/p][/quote]most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude. Magicman!
  • Score: 7

1:11am Sun 23 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious.

Let's get the bridge open again.

I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.
How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city??

Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....?

Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious. Let's get the bridge open again. I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.[/p][/quote]How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city?? Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....? Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years. Magicman!
  • Score: 18

1:22am Sun 23 Feb 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

I think that unused new cycle track was a part of a plan to make it exepenive, if not impossible to duel at least that part of the 1237.
For cetain there are examples of democracy failing in the UK and the CoYC is a perfect example. The only question remaining is to wonder how these people got elected in he first place? Maybe that thumb fixer has been at it longer than we think?
I think that unused new cycle track was a part of a plan to make it exepenive, if not impossible to duel at least that part of the 1237. For cetain there are examples of democracy failing in the UK and the CoYC is a perfect example. The only question remaining is to wonder how these people got elected in he first place? Maybe that thumb fixer has been at it longer than we think? ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -21

8:32am Sun 23 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ?

Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ?

The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process.

I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.
most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude.
What's wrong with owning a car? I own a car, I have had several cars throughout the years I have been driving, and quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument.
My advice to you bikers is - you bike if you want to - I am not bothered one way or the other, but I will drive thank you very much, and no amount of name calling will make me feel guilty, it's my choice of transport just as the bike, bus, train, walking are other people's choices!!!.
Close the bridge, open the bridge, whatever people think is the better solution doesn't come into the equation, as the CoYC will only do what they want, so get used to it and get on with life.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ? Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ? The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process. I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.[/p][/quote]most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude.[/p][/quote]What's wrong with owning a car? I own a car, I have had several cars throughout the years I have been driving, and quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument. My advice to you bikers is - you bike if you want to - I am not bothered one way or the other, but I will drive thank you very much, and no amount of name calling will make me feel guilty, it's my choice of transport just as the bike, bus, train, walking are other people's choices!!!. Close the bridge, open the bridge, whatever people think is the better solution doesn't come into the equation, as the CoYC will only do what they want, so get used to it and get on with life. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -24

1:58pm Sun 23 Feb 14

mjgyork says...

bolero wrote:
Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so.
I cannot think of anywhere in York that I could not access without the necessity of going via the Lendal Bride. Indeed, it is a route. unless given no alternative. I would avoid at all costs All it takes it is a little thought and planing. It is in no way a 'vital 'link'! Homosexuals, Buddhists, zoroastrianists, Non-whites, so all minorities are to be denied a voice? Sound like the 'Tyranny of consensus' to me.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so.[/p][/quote]I cannot think of anywhere in York that I could not access without the necessity of going via the Lendal Bride. Indeed, it is a route. unless given no alternative. I would avoid at all costs All it takes it is a little thought and planing. It is in no way a 'vital 'link'! Homosexuals, Buddhists, zoroastrianists, Non-whites, so all minorities are to be denied a voice? Sound like the 'Tyranny of consensus' to me. mjgyork
  • Score: 11

2:26pm Sun 23 Feb 14

CaroleBaines says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
What a selection of letters...

Ian Foster wrote:
It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.
The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive.

Ian Foster wrote:
Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators
There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened?
I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed.

Mark Ringrose wrote:
Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).
Unbelievably stupid thing to say.

Bob Redwood wrote
Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.
Phew! Finally something rooted in sense.
Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away.
Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations"Spot on - agree totally with schism creating being utter nonsense. I travel around much more by car than I do cycle, but still recognise that our roads are reaching saturation point and that Paul Hepworth has some valid points. I do not consider myself belonging to any blinkered lobby group just because I occasionally cycle, or drive for that matter. People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: What a selection of letters... [quote]Ian Foster wrote: It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.[/quote] The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive. [quote]Ian Foster wrote: Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators[/quote] There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened? I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed. [quote]Mark Ringrose wrote: Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).[/quote] Unbelievably stupid thing to say. [quote]Bob Redwood wrote[/quote] Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.[/quote] Phew! Finally something rooted in sense. Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away. Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations"[/p][/quote]Spot on - agree totally with schism creating being utter nonsense. I travel around much more by car than I do cycle, but still recognise that our roads are reaching saturation point and that Paul Hepworth has some valid points. I do not consider myself belonging to any blinkered lobby group just because I occasionally cycle, or drive for that matter. People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 14

5:58pm Sun 23 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Magicman! wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious.

Let's get the bridge open again.

I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.
How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city??

Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....?

Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.
Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA)
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious. Let's get the bridge open again. I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.[/p][/quote]How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city?? Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....? Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.[/p][/quote]Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again. Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA) strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -15

6:12pm Sun 23 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

By the way does that mean the council are manipulating the "constraining" (Mr Merretts words) of traffic at Bootham to be able to say that the closure has not increased congestion?

If the junction has to cope with more traffic down Bootham when the bridge is closed and it does so with a small tweak of the lights why did the council not do this before the closure and save all of the wasted time and pollution? Why change it back and forth now causing congestion and pollution?
By the way does that mean the council are manipulating the "constraining" (Mr Merretts words) of traffic at Bootham to be able to say that the closure has not increased congestion? If the junction has to cope with more traffic down Bootham when the bridge is closed and it does so with a small tweak of the lights why did the council not do this before the closure and save all of the wasted time and pollution? Why change it back and forth now causing congestion and pollution? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -20

6:14pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious.

Let's get the bridge open again.

I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.
How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city??

Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....?

Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.
Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA)
Yes I'm with you on this, bullying does not work, another reason which all the bike fanatics seem to forget is, if you spend a considerable amount of money on a car then why leave it at home and hop on a bus or a bike, I bet a pound to a penny that these bikers love riding their bikes as much I love driving my car - forget about the open road before you even say it pp - as my previous comment said I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument, and I make no excuse what so ever regarding the use of my car.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious. Let's get the bridge open again. I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.[/p][/quote]How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city?? Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....? Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.[/p][/quote]Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again. Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA)[/p][/quote]Yes I'm with you on this, bullying does not work, another reason which all the bike fanatics seem to forget is, if you spend a considerable amount of money on a car then why leave it at home and hop on a bus or a bike, I bet a pound to a penny that these bikers love riding their bikes as much I love driving my car - forget about the open road before you even say it pp - as my previous comment said I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument, and I make no excuse what so ever regarding the use of my car. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -28

9:07pm Sun 23 Feb 14

bolero says...

mjgyork wrote:
bolero wrote:
Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so.
I cannot think of anywhere in York that I could not access without the necessity of going via the Lendal Bride. Indeed, it is a route. unless given no alternative. I would avoid at all costs All it takes it is a little thought and planing. It is in no way a 'vital 'link'! Homosexuals, Buddhists, zoroastrianists, Non-whites, so all minorities are to be denied a voice? Sound like the 'Tyranny of consensus' to me.
A bridge is a means of getting across a river; to the unitiated or totally ignorant, and in this case forms a vital link between two halves of a city separated by said river.
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: Is it not about time that the legalities of closing a vital link road in a city were examine? Ignoring the usual claptrap from the pedalling minority, surely we all have a right to use the roads to which we all contribute financially and the motorist more so.[/p][/quote]I cannot think of anywhere in York that I could not access without the necessity of going via the Lendal Bride. Indeed, it is a route. unless given no alternative. I would avoid at all costs All it takes it is a little thought and planing. It is in no way a 'vital 'link'! Homosexuals, Buddhists, zoroastrianists, Non-whites, so all minorities are to be denied a voice? Sound like the 'Tyranny of consensus' to me.[/p][/quote]A bridge is a means of getting across a river; to the unitiated or totally ignorant, and in this case forms a vital link between two halves of a city separated by said river. bolero
  • Score: -13

9:27pm Sun 23 Feb 14

tweedwarrior says...

Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus.

I know this is boring, stay with me.

However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are.

So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case.
Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus. I know this is boring, stay with me. However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are. So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case. tweedwarrior
  • Score: 10

9:40pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

tweedwarrior wrote:
Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus.

I know this is boring, stay with me.

However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are.

So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case.
Well thank you for letting me know that every day I drive my car I am being subsidised by bike riders and bus passengers, does it mean that I can have a refund of your part of the road tax or VED as some call it, if so where would I claim this subsidy from?
[quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus. I know this is boring, stay with me. However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are. So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case.[/p][/quote]Well thank you for letting me know that every day I drive my car I am being subsidised by bike riders and bus passengers, does it mean that I can have a refund of your part of the road tax or VED as some call it, if so where would I claim this subsidy from? Igiveinthen
  • Score: -18

10:04pm Sun 23 Feb 14

tweedwarrior says...

No, it's just that VED would cost us all more if some didn't walk, cycle or use the bus when they could drive. And no, you can't have my bit, that would be greedy. I am giving it to the nation.
No, it's just that VED would cost us all more if some didn't walk, cycle or use the bus when they could drive. And no, you can't have my bit, that would be greedy. I am giving it to the nation. tweedwarrior
  • Score: 36

10:25pm Sun 23 Feb 14

strangebuttrue? says...

The arguments about the amount of road space taken up by cars falls down when you look at the amount of empty road space taken up by bus and cycle lanes which cars are not allowed to use.

I have also been counting passengers on busses again today as I sat in the pointless council created queues. Once again I could only get up to a maximum of 7 passengers on one bus with one large bendy P&R bus carrying just one passenger out of the five I counted.

Having said that my thanks do go out to all who choose to bus, cycle or walk as it does reduce the numbers of cars sitting in the pointless queues created by the council in their quest to bully us all out of our cars.

I see our score adjuster is still hard at it - go on this one must be worth - 3000.
The arguments about the amount of road space taken up by cars falls down when you look at the amount of empty road space taken up by bus and cycle lanes which cars are not allowed to use. I have also been counting passengers on busses again today as I sat in the pointless council created queues. Once again I could only get up to a maximum of 7 passengers on one bus with one large bendy P&R bus carrying just one passenger out of the five I counted. Having said that my thanks do go out to all who choose to bus, cycle or walk as it does reduce the numbers of cars sitting in the pointless queues created by the council in their quest to bully us all out of our cars. I see our score adjuster is still hard at it - go on this one must be worth - 3000. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -31

10:25pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Quotes aren't working so:

**Bolero wrote:
"A bridge is a means of getting across a river; to the unitiated or totally ignorant, and in this case forms a vital link between two halves of a city separated by said river."**

Exactly. This is it. The crux of the argument right there in one sentence.

If planners with vision want to create a change, then cool, have a go. Close streets, change junctions, manage traffic - But don't shut a bridge! All that engineering for what? What would the tall-hatted IKB say?

The river splits us. We have Skeldergate, Ousegate, Lendal and Clifton for vehicles and Millennium and Scarborough for pedestrians/bikes. That's six possible crossings in total, four for motors.

Considerable effort went into their construction for a considerable purpose.

While we're about it, let's all brick up our windows. It's the only solution to bright morning sun waking me up early.....
Quotes aren't working so: **Bolero wrote: "A bridge is a means of getting across a river; to the unitiated or totally ignorant, and in this case forms a vital link between two halves of a city separated by said river."** Exactly. This is it. The crux of the argument right there in one sentence. If planners with vision want to create a change, then cool, have a go. Close streets, change junctions, manage traffic - But don't shut a bridge! All that engineering for what? What would the tall-hatted IKB say? The river splits us. We have Skeldergate, Ousegate, Lendal and Clifton for vehicles and Millennium and Scarborough for pedestrians/bikes. That's six possible crossings in total, four for motors. Considerable effort went into their construction for a considerable purpose. While we're about it, let's all brick up our windows. It's the only solution to bright morning sun waking me up early..... Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

10:28pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

tweedwarrior wrote:
No, it's just that VED would cost us all more if some didn't walk, cycle or use the bus when they could drive. And no, you can't have my bit, that would be greedy. I am giving it to the nation.
It's ok was only joking, the nation obviously needs it more than I do, enjoy your biking, busing and walking, I'll stick to the car thanks all the same.
[quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: No, it's just that VED would cost us all more if some didn't walk, cycle or use the bus when they could drive. And no, you can't have my bit, that would be greedy. I am giving it to the nation.[/p][/quote]It's ok was only joking, the nation obviously needs it more than I do, enjoy your biking, busing and walking, I'll stick to the car thanks all the same. Igiveinthen
  • Score: -27

11:23pm Sun 23 Feb 14

spiritofyork says...

ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.
ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES. spiritofyork
  • Score: -24

9:56am Mon 24 Feb 14

Tricky Dickie says...

spiritofyork wrote:
ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.
As a reasonably environmentally savvy person that regularly walks, cycles and drives around the city I'm vehemently opposed to the closure of Lendal Bridge, but this type of comment does no good for the case. Increasingly the arguments from both sides have become more entrenched and more personal, and quite frankly more bonkers.

The bridge should be open to all to use. Closing it to a certain groups of users is not the magic bullet to reduce the use of cars or delivery vehicles in York, it just shifts the problem elsewhere, and increases pollution overall.

There's little doubt that there are few options to increase road capacity in the city (at least not for motorised vehicles - but maybe for pedestrians and cyclists if we use our imaginations). However, artificially restricting in this manner it is not the answer. It worked for the footstreets, but lendal Bridge is a key route that doesn't have trully viable alternatives that do not involve traffic diverting through residential areas or past schools.

We need to have an adult debate about how we make best use of the capacity we have to ensure that those that need or choose to drive around the city can do so as efficiently as possible as part of a broad strategy that doesn't pit one group against another.

We need workable ideas. Not dogma and ad hominem attacks from either side. Lets play the ball and not the man.
[quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.[/p][/quote]As a reasonably environmentally savvy person that regularly walks, cycles and drives around the city I'm vehemently opposed to the closure of Lendal Bridge, but this type of comment does no good for the case. Increasingly the arguments from both sides have become more entrenched and more personal, and quite frankly more bonkers. The bridge should be open to all to use. Closing it to a certain groups of users is not the magic bullet to reduce the use of cars or delivery vehicles in York, it just shifts the problem elsewhere, and increases pollution overall. There's little doubt that there are few options to increase road capacity in the city (at least not for motorised vehicles - but maybe for pedestrians and cyclists if we use our imaginations). However, artificially restricting in this manner it is not the answer. It worked for the footstreets, but lendal Bridge is a key route that doesn't have trully viable alternatives that do not involve traffic diverting through residential areas or past schools. We need to have an adult debate about how we make best use of the capacity we have to ensure that those that need or choose to drive around the city can do so as efficiently as possible as part of a broad strategy that doesn't pit one group against another. We need workable ideas. Not dogma and ad hominem attacks from either side. Lets play the ball and not the man. Tricky Dickie
  • Score: 9

10:27am Mon 24 Feb 14

Bo Jolly says...

Tricky Dickie wrote:
spiritofyork wrote:
ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.
As a reasonably environmentally savvy person that regularly walks, cycles and drives around the city I'm vehemently opposed to the closure of Lendal Bridge, but this type of comment does no good for the case. Increasingly the arguments from both sides have become more entrenched and more personal, and quite frankly more bonkers.

The bridge should be open to all to use. Closing it to a certain groups of users is not the magic bullet to reduce the use of cars or delivery vehicles in York, it just shifts the problem elsewhere, and increases pollution overall.

There's little doubt that there are few options to increase road capacity in the city (at least not for motorised vehicles - but maybe for pedestrians and cyclists if we use our imaginations). However, artificially restricting in this manner it is not the answer. It worked for the footstreets, but lendal Bridge is a key route that doesn't have trully viable alternatives that do not involve traffic diverting through residential areas or past schools.

We need to have an adult debate about how we make best use of the capacity we have to ensure that those that need or choose to drive around the city can do so as efficiently as possible as part of a broad strategy that doesn't pit one group against another.

We need workable ideas. Not dogma and ad hominem attacks from either side. Lets play the ball and not the man.
Well said Tricky Dickie.

I am opposed to the Lendal Bridge closure because it doesn't do what it is designed to do, but simply shifts traffic, congestion and the resultant air pollution elsewhere. To be fair to other contributors, I think that is also most people's objection. And in the process of not achieving its aims, it causes financial hardship and extra journey times for local people who need to drive as well as annoying the tourists who get caught out in the trap.

The reason for 'extreme' reactions, I suspect, is that it seems *incredible* that this 'trial' ever went ahead; it can only be the product of vehement anti-car dogma on the part of those proposing it, otherwise they would have stood back at the planning stage and realised what is obvious to everyone else: that you can't reduce congestion by closing part of the inner ring road thus forcing more traffic through fewer roads, you can only increase it. As someone else memorably pastiched the decision making on this:

'Let's close Lendal Bridge!'

'OK, I guess, but where will all the traffic go?'

'Er... um... CARS ARE BAD!'

'Alright let's do it!'
[quote][p][bold]Tricky Dickie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.[/p][/quote]As a reasonably environmentally savvy person that regularly walks, cycles and drives around the city I'm vehemently opposed to the closure of Lendal Bridge, but this type of comment does no good for the case. Increasingly the arguments from both sides have become more entrenched and more personal, and quite frankly more bonkers. The bridge should be open to all to use. Closing it to a certain groups of users is not the magic bullet to reduce the use of cars or delivery vehicles in York, it just shifts the problem elsewhere, and increases pollution overall. There's little doubt that there are few options to increase road capacity in the city (at least not for motorised vehicles - but maybe for pedestrians and cyclists if we use our imaginations). However, artificially restricting in this manner it is not the answer. It worked for the footstreets, but lendal Bridge is a key route that doesn't have trully viable alternatives that do not involve traffic diverting through residential areas or past schools. We need to have an adult debate about how we make best use of the capacity we have to ensure that those that need or choose to drive around the city can do so as efficiently as possible as part of a broad strategy that doesn't pit one group against another. We need workable ideas. Not dogma and ad hominem attacks from either side. Lets play the ball and not the man.[/p][/quote]Well said Tricky Dickie. I am opposed to the Lendal Bridge closure because it doesn't do what it is designed to do, but simply shifts traffic, congestion and the resultant air pollution elsewhere. To be fair to other contributors, I think that is also most people's objection. And in the process of not achieving its aims, it causes financial hardship and extra journey times for local people who need to drive as well as annoying the tourists who get caught out in the trap. The reason for 'extreme' reactions, I suspect, is that it seems *incredible* that this 'trial' ever went ahead; it can only be the product of vehement anti-car dogma on the part of those proposing it, otherwise they would have stood back at the planning stage and realised what is obvious to everyone else: that you can't reduce congestion by closing part of the inner ring road thus forcing more traffic through fewer roads, you can only increase it. As someone else memorably pastiched the decision making on this: 'Let's close Lendal Bridge!' 'OK, I guess, but where will all the traffic go?' 'Er... um... CARS ARE BAD!' 'Alright let's do it!' Bo Jolly
  • Score: 5

11:36am Mon 24 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

The ramp on Water End that returns cyclists from off-road to on-road has been there since day 1 of the scheme. It originally led directly into a green surfaced advisory cycle lane right up to the junction. If it was moved back to increase the LH filter lane's length, the filter lane would still become inaccessible at peak times, as traffic tailbacks regularly extend right across the Ouse. And that's not only since Lendal Bridge closed. It was tailing back well before then.
I have witnessed drivers overriding the concrete ramp in a desperate attempt to shoehorn their car into the LH lane, and quite regardless or the safety of any cyclists in the vicinity. Add in the downhill race to beat the junction traffic lights and we have a safety maelstrom.
Might be time to get the magic wand out, and briefly convert all peak time bus passengers and cyclists into sole occupancy car users. The ensuing gridlock would quickly make you appreciate the significant contribution of intelligent travel choices. Cars are good servants for many journeys, but bad masters if you choose to use one for short distance local commuting.
The ramp on Water End that returns cyclists from off-road to on-road has been there since day 1 of the scheme. It originally led directly into a green surfaced advisory cycle lane right up to the junction. If it was moved back to increase the LH filter lane's length, the filter lane would still become inaccessible at peak times, as traffic tailbacks regularly extend right across the Ouse. And that's not only since Lendal Bridge closed. It was tailing back well before then. I have witnessed drivers overriding the concrete ramp in a desperate attempt to shoehorn their car into the LH lane, and quite regardless or the safety of any cyclists in the vicinity. Add in the downhill race to beat the junction traffic lights and we have a safety maelstrom. Might be time to get the magic wand out, and briefly convert all peak time bus passengers and cyclists into sole occupancy car users. The ensuing gridlock would quickly make you appreciate the significant contribution of intelligent travel choices. Cars are good servants for many journeys, but bad masters if you choose to use one for short distance local commuting. pedalling paul
  • Score: -9

11:53am Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
The ramp on Water End that returns cyclists from off-road to on-road has been there since day 1 of the scheme. It originally led directly into a green surfaced advisory cycle lane right up to the junction. If it was moved back to increase the LH filter lane's length, the filter lane would still become inaccessible at peak times, as traffic tailbacks regularly extend right across the Ouse. And that's not only since Lendal Bridge closed. It was tailing back well before then. I have witnessed drivers overriding the concrete ramp in a desperate attempt to shoehorn their car into the LH lane, and quite regardless or the safety of any cyclists in the vicinity. Add in the downhill race to beat the junction traffic lights and we have a safety maelstrom. Might be time to get the magic wand out, and briefly convert all peak time bus passengers and cyclists into sole occupancy car users. The ensuing gridlock would quickly make you appreciate the significant contribution of intelligent travel choices. Cars are good servants for many journeys, but bad masters if you choose to use one for short distance local commuting.
What do you consider a short distance commute? is it a walk that takes no longer than say 20/30 minutes, or to do the same on a push bike?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: The ramp on Water End that returns cyclists from off-road to on-road has been there since day 1 of the scheme. It originally led directly into a green surfaced advisory cycle lane right up to the junction. If it was moved back to increase the LH filter lane's length, the filter lane would still become inaccessible at peak times, as traffic tailbacks regularly extend right across the Ouse. And that's not only since Lendal Bridge closed. It was tailing back well before then. I have witnessed drivers overriding the concrete ramp in a desperate attempt to shoehorn their car into the LH lane, and quite regardless or the safety of any cyclists in the vicinity. Add in the downhill race to beat the junction traffic lights and we have a safety maelstrom. Might be time to get the magic wand out, and briefly convert all peak time bus passengers and cyclists into sole occupancy car users. The ensuing gridlock would quickly make you appreciate the significant contribution of intelligent travel choices. Cars are good servants for many journeys, but bad masters if you choose to use one for short distance local commuting.[/p][/quote]What do you consider a short distance commute? is it a walk that takes no longer than say 20/30 minutes, or to do the same on a push bike? Igiveinthen
  • Score: 11

6:49pm Mon 24 Feb 14

bolero says...

So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists.
So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists. bolero
  • Score: 2

7:55pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

bolero wrote:
So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists.
Why the prejudice?
I fully endorsed your comment and I ride bikes.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why the prejudice? I fully endorsed your comment and I ride bikes. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 2

8:45pm Mon 24 Feb 14

bolero says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
bolero wrote:
So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists.
Why the prejudice?
I fully endorsed your comment and I ride bikes.
I have nothing against cyclists. It's just a pity that the cyclists who have a prejudice against motorists and blether on non-stop as though there is no other form of transport which is suitable to individual needs and requirements results in all cyclists being placed in the same category. I have said this before in previous article postings. I acknowledge your endorsement and apologise to you as an individual for any offence.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: So fourteen people disagree with me that a bridge is a means of crossing a river. They must be cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why the prejudice? I fully endorsed your comment and I ride bikes.[/p][/quote]I have nothing against cyclists. It's just a pity that the cyclists who have a prejudice against motorists and blether on non-stop as though there is no other form of transport which is suitable to individual needs and requirements results in all cyclists being placed in the same category. I have said this before in previous article postings. I acknowledge your endorsement and apologise to you as an individual for any offence. bolero
  • Score: 3

8:57pm Mon 24 Feb 14

pedalling paul says...

Amazing how many misguided souls still think that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax by some) contributes directly to York's local roads. It does not!! Nor does paying it bestow any entitlements.
VED income goes into the Chancellor's big pot, along with all national taxes like VAT. Much of the pot is spent on the NHS, nuclear missiles and 3rd world aid. Even flood relief!! The DfT gets a smidgeon to spend on motorways (York has none) and strategic trunk roads. (York has one viz the A64).All other roads in York are maintained by CoYC principally funded from Council Tax income.
Get yer facts right!!
Amazing how many misguided souls still think that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax by some) contributes directly to York's local roads. It does not!! Nor does paying it bestow any entitlements. VED income goes into the Chancellor's big pot, along with all national taxes like VAT. Much of the pot is spent on the NHS, nuclear missiles and 3rd world aid. Even flood relief!! The DfT gets a smidgeon to spend on motorways (York has none) and strategic trunk roads. (York has one viz the A64).All other roads in York are maintained by CoYC principally funded from Council Tax income. Get yer facts right!! pedalling paul
  • Score: -5

9:04pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Igiveinthen says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Amazing how many misguided souls still think that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax by some) contributes directly to York's local roads. It does not!! Nor does paying it bestow any entitlements.
VED income goes into the Chancellor's big pot, along with all national taxes like VAT. Much of the pot is spent on the NHS, nuclear missiles and 3rd world aid. Even flood relief!! The DfT gets a smidgeon to spend on motorways (York has none) and strategic trunk roads. (York has one viz the A64).All other roads in York are maintained by CoYC principally funded from Council Tax income.
Get yer facts right!!
Paul, as a single occupancy car user I asked you a question earlier i.e. What do you consider a short distance commute? is it a walk that takes no longer than say 20/30 minutes, or to do the same on a push bike - it's not a trick question it's that I'm curious.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: Amazing how many misguided souls still think that Vehicle Excise Duty (wrongly called Road Tax by some) contributes directly to York's local roads. It does not!! Nor does paying it bestow any entitlements. VED income goes into the Chancellor's big pot, along with all national taxes like VAT. Much of the pot is spent on the NHS, nuclear missiles and 3rd world aid. Even flood relief!! The DfT gets a smidgeon to spend on motorways (York has none) and strategic trunk roads. (York has one viz the A64).All other roads in York are maintained by CoYC principally funded from Council Tax income. Get yer facts right!![/p][/quote]Paul, as a single occupancy car user I asked you a question earlier i.e. What do you consider a short distance commute? is it a walk that takes no longer than say 20/30 minutes, or to do the same on a push bike - it's not a trick question it's that I'm curious. Igiveinthen
  • Score: 3

2:30am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

Igiveinthen wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ?

Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ?

The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process.

I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.
most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude.
What's wrong with owning a car? I own a car, I have had several cars throughout the years I have been driving, and quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument.
My advice to you bikers is - you bike if you want to - I am not bothered one way or the other, but I will drive thank you very much, and no amount of name calling will make me feel guilty, it's my choice of transport just as the bike, bus, train, walking are other people's choices!!!.
Close the bridge, open the bridge, whatever people think is the better solution doesn't come into the equation, as the CoYC will only do what they want, so get used to it and get on with life.
If you drive, I don't mind. Especially if you have to drive (either due to work or a disability, for example)...

The people I have a problem with is those that *could* realistically use another mode of transport (without there being any real time difference), but then still use the car and then think it is the fault of cyclists or buses that there is congestion in York, and then critiscise those that make decisions to try and free up roadspace for higher priority journeys.

As an example journey, from Huntington to Clifton Park (Rawcliffe) would take about 10-15 minutes at 2pm on a weekday, using the A1237 - and that's the quickest way of getting there at that time of the day. But try the same journey at 8am-9am and it'll easily take 40 minutes or more, compared to 20-30 minutes on a bike. If it is good weather and a person decides to drive that journey at that time, that is their decision, but to then say it is "all the fault of cyclists and the council pandering to them by closing a bridge" that there is such congestion along the A1237 is wrong, as that person has decided to make that journey when there is another mode of travel that is either equal or better at getting from A to B, and they've decided to go in the car and add to the congestion.

I am honestly baffled at why this whole Lendal bridge saga is dragging out for such a long time, when it only seems to be a select group of people that keeps feeding the flames.
[quote][p][bold]Igiveinthen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Another 'small number of reactionary gentlemen' writing 'sneering letters' ? Jim McGurn might say so, but, isn't the truth that it is messrs McGurn and Hepworth (plus Merrett's motley anti-car brigade at CYC), who are the minority who favour the Lendal Bridge closure ? The council are desperate to justify this massively unpopular trial closure, but, their attempts at falsifying the statistics and manipulating the consultation process are obvious to those tracking the process. I expect a few more letters of support, which will be exceeded in quantity by those who oppose this flawed proposal.[/p][/quote]most of those that do favour the closure don't dare to say so on here because they know they'll be flamed down by those who have the "have car, must drive anywhere at anytime" attitude.[/p][/quote]What's wrong with owning a car? I own a car, I have had several cars throughout the years I have been driving, and quite frankly I am sick to the back teeth of this bike verses car argument. My advice to you bikers is - you bike if you want to - I am not bothered one way or the other, but I will drive thank you very much, and no amount of name calling will make me feel guilty, it's my choice of transport just as the bike, bus, train, walking are other people's choices!!!. Close the bridge, open the bridge, whatever people think is the better solution doesn't come into the equation, as the CoYC will only do what they want, so get used to it and get on with life.[/p][/quote]If you drive, I don't mind. Especially if you have to drive (either due to work or a disability, for example)... The people I have a problem with is those that *could* realistically use another mode of transport (without there being any real time difference), but then still use the car and then think it is the fault of cyclists or buses that there is congestion in York, and then critiscise those that make decisions to try and free up roadspace for higher priority journeys. As an example journey, from Huntington to Clifton Park (Rawcliffe) would take about 10-15 minutes at 2pm on a weekday, using the A1237 - and that's the quickest way of getting there at that time of the day. But try the same journey at 8am-9am and it'll easily take 40 minutes or more, compared to 20-30 minutes on a bike. If it is good weather and a person decides to drive that journey at that time, that is their decision, but to then say it is "all the fault of cyclists and the council pandering to them by closing a bridge" that there is such congestion along the A1237 is wrong, as that person has decided to make that journey when there is another mode of travel that is either equal or better at getting from A to B, and they've decided to go in the car and add to the congestion. I am honestly baffled at why this whole Lendal bridge saga is dragging out for such a long time, when it only seems to be a select group of people that keeps feeding the flames. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:33am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
What a selection of letters...

Ian Foster wrote:
It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.
The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive.

Ian Foster wrote:
Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators
There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened?
I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed.

Mark Ringrose wrote:
Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).
Unbelievably stupid thing to say.

Bob Redwood wrote
Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.
Phew! Finally something rooted in sense.
Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away.
Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations"Spot on - agree totally with schism creating being utter nonsense. I travel around much more by car than I do cycle, but still recognise that our roads are reaching saturation point and that Paul Hepworth has some valid points. I do not consider myself belonging to any blinkered lobby group just because I occasionally cycle, or drive for that matter. People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.Agreed... I've quoted this so that there's a higher liklihood the above gets read if it was skipped over earlier.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: What a selection of letters... [quote]Ian Foster wrote: It is about time cyclists realised the roads do not belong solely to them and the rules of the Highway Code apply to them just as much as motorists.[/quote] The majority of them do. Creating a schism, singling out a group called "cyclists" and attributing them all with the same false characteristic is dangerous prejudice which I find highly offensive. [quote]Ian Foster wrote: Most people in York own and run a car and have paid a lot of money to do so, and are not going to be told how to get around by anti-car dictators[/quote] There are no dictators. Paul Hepworth? A dictator? What power does he have except to waffle on? Why do you feel so threatened? I wouldn't say "most" people own and run a car but "many" do yes. And guess what? Many of those money-paying car-owners ride bikes too. Your schism is ugly and flawed. [quote]Mark Ringrose wrote: Well, he is wrong again (as everyone is from the cycling world).[/quote] Unbelievably stupid thing to say. [quote]Bob Redwood wrote[/quote] Coun Anna Semlyen is convinced we all want 20mph limits when it is obvious the vast majority think it unnecessary.[/quote] Phew! Finally something rooted in sense. Mr Redwood's statement here rings very true, especially after yesterday's disgraceful shutting down of comments on the 20's Plenty story. An overwhelming consensus of doubt and worry about the process of democracy and questioning of motives, nothing personal or abusive obviously needs to be shut down right away. Ironically, this happened on a story whose subject was "We won;t be doing any more consultations"[/p][/quote]Spot on - agree totally with schism creating being utter nonsense. I travel around much more by car than I do cycle, but still recognise that our roads are reaching saturation point and that Paul Hepworth has some valid points. I do not consider myself belonging to any blinkered lobby group just because I occasionally cycle, or drive for that matter. People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.[/p][/quote]Agreed... I've quoted this so that there's a higher liklihood the above gets read if it was skipped over earlier. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:35am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious.

Let's get the bridge open again.

I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.
How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city??

Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....?

Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.
Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA)
So when decisions have been made to *encourage* people to cycle or use the bus, you've abandoned those modes of transport and bullishly got in the car for every single journey?

Well then, I have no more to say on that. I have my evaluation of the situation and so will rest my case there.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: I see the score adjuster has been happily working away a bit subtle today so as not to make it too obvious. Let's get the bridge open again. I have said recently that the council are manipulating the lights at Bootham to get better P&R bus times. During the day when the bridge is closed they have been. But goodness - for the first time I came down that way a couple of days ago, having been lulled into a false sense of security by the day time phasing, only to find when the bridge is open they change back to only letting five or six cars at a time out of Bootham!! I was in the queue for about 15 mins from Bootham hospital and made late for an appointment. Thank you YCC.[/p][/quote]How exactly would extending the amount of green light time for traffic at Bootham heading INTO the city improve P&R bus times, when the only P&R service to use Bootham only uses it heading OUT of the city?? Don't you think it's more a case that during the hours of the bridge closure, the green time for Bootham has been extended because that's where the majority of the traffic is, instead of at Exhibiton Square....? Try thinking about things before you type. It also helps if you have a working knoweledge of bus routes in York - which you need if you use the bus, so the lack of any such knoweledge suggests a person who has likely not stepped on a bus in York in years.[/p][/quote]Quite correct I have not used a bus for about as long as I have not used my bike. That coincide with my realisation that the council were trying to force me to use either a bus or my bike. Deciding I would not be bullied I abandoned both and now use my car even if I do not need to. When the council stop bulling car driving residents I may consider using both again. Thank you for pointing out my error. I had not realised that anyone would be so stupid as to direct all the huge bendy P&R busses through the narrow streets of residential areas. That may explain why the pollution levels in this area have risen so dramatically that the council were forced to name it as a special area of concern. (AQMA)[/p][/quote]So when decisions have been made to *encourage* people to cycle or use the bus, you've abandoned those modes of transport and bullishly got in the car for every single journey? Well then, I have no more to say on that. I have my evaluation of the situation and so will rest my case there. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:36am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

tweedwarrior wrote:
Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus.

I know this is boring, stay with me.

However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are.

So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case.
Flawless logic.
[quote][p][bold]tweedwarrior[/bold] wrote: Erm, maybe I'm missing something, but I drive a car, for which I pay road tax, but also often cycle, walk, use the bus etc. Now, when I drive the car, I cause much more wear and tear on the highway than when I cycle or use the bus, because the car is heavier than the bike, or "my" proportion of the bus. The car also imposes a much greater congestion cost, per person travelling, because it is also bigger than a bike or my proportion of the bus. I know this is boring, stay with me. However, I think what this means is that when I choose to walk, cycle or travel by bus, because I've already paid my road tax, I'm actually subsidising those who drive, because I am paying the same amount of road tax, but imposing much lower costs on everyone than car drivers are. So, drivers, thank me and my kind, for keeping costs down for you! Those who think they are subsidising cyclists and bus users - the opposite is probably the case.[/p][/quote]Flawless logic. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:43am Tue 25 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

spiritofyork wrote:
ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.
Ah, the mis-named Spiritofyork has managed to find the doorhandle on his rock, and come out to shout at everybody before disappearing back inside again.

ah well, here's a sentance from another person which adequately responds to the above:
CaroleBaines says...
People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.


If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani'
s","Chinese","Indian
s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women"
,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not.
[quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.[/p][/quote]Ah, the mis-named Spiritofyork has managed to find the doorhandle on his rock, and come out to shout at everybody before disappearing back inside again. ah well, here's a sentance from another person which adequately responds to the above: CaroleBaines says... [quote]People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.[/quote] If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani' s","Chinese","Indian s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women" ,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not. Magicman!
  • Score: 2

11:12am Tue 25 Feb 14

JasBro says...

The trial has failed.

Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times.
The trial has failed. Increased congestion, increased pollution, increased costs, increased journey times. JasBro
  • Score: 1

11:36am Tue 25 Feb 14

Tricky Dickie says...

Magicman! wrote:
spiritofyork wrote:
ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.
Ah, the mis-named Spiritofyork has managed to find the doorhandle on his rock, and come out to shout at everybody before disappearing back inside again.

ah well, here's a sentance from another person which adequately responds to the above:
CaroleBaines says...
People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.


If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani'

s","Chinese","Indian

s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women"

,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not.
Magicman! says:

If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani'

s","Chinese","Indian

s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women"

,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not.

Hey, Magicman!, while in an earlier post I said that I thought Spirit Of York's contribution was unhelpful, your reply is one of the funniest things I've read on this subject in ages. On two counts.

1. Are you really saying that somebody commenting that cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road is a prejudice of equal standing to racism, sexism and disabled descrimination? Wow.

2. If you are, and we've now created a new descrimination that is defined by the individual's mode of transport (let's call it "transportism") then anybody that is not given equal rights to all other members of the travelling community most therefore be the victim of "transportism". So, for example, if lets say, a group of people that chose, or needed to use a certain form of transport and had paid in equally to the upkeep of the infrastructure shared by all other groups of travellers, was then subsequently not allowed to share in that piece of infrasture surely they would be the victims of "transportism"? And that wouldn't be right or fair would it? Certainly if other groups were then given an unfair personal or commercial advantage in doing so? Luckily that type of prejudice doesn't happen does it?

Er....hang on a minute, I think I may have found a problem with your reasoning.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: ENOUGH of cyclists, WEVE HAD ENOUGH. get off the roads. 99% of York don't want you. if you have to pedal to satisfy your curious desires, then go to the velodrome at York Sport Village,. Leave the roads to us. You all PAY NO TAX and IGNORE THE RULES.[/p][/quote]Ah, the mis-named Spiritofyork has managed to find the doorhandle on his rock, and come out to shout at everybody before disappearing back inside again. ah well, here's a sentance from another person which adequately responds to the above: CaroleBaines says... [quote]People are people and are not defined by which mode of transport they use. To think otherwise is at best, lazy, and at worst, comes from the sort of antagonistic thinking racism stems from.[/quote] If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani' s","Chinese","Indian s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women" ,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not.[/p][/quote]Magicman! says: If you replace the word "cyclists" in spiritofyork's above post with any of the following words: "Blacks","Pakistani' s","Chinese","Indian s","Polish", "Immigrants","Women" ,"Disabled People", and then ask yourself "would such a post be allowed to remain publically on this site?" - probably not. Hey, Magicman!, while in an earlier post I said that I thought Spirit Of York's contribution was unhelpful, your reply is one of the funniest things I've read on this subject in ages. On two counts. 1. Are you really saying that somebody commenting that cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road is a prejudice of equal standing to racism, sexism and disabled descrimination? Wow. 2. If you are, and we've now created a new descrimination that is defined by the individual's mode of transport (let's call it "transportism") then anybody that is not given equal rights to all other members of the travelling community most therefore be the victim of "transportism". So, for example, if lets say, a group of people that chose, or needed to use a certain form of transport and had paid in equally to the upkeep of the infrastructure shared by all other groups of travellers, was then subsequently not allowed to share in that piece of infrasture surely they would be the victims of "transportism"? And that wouldn't be right or fair would it? Certainly if other groups were then given an unfair personal or commercial advantage in doing so? Luckily that type of prejudice doesn't happen does it? Er....hang on a minute, I think I may have found a problem with your reasoning. Tricky Dickie
  • Score: -1

11:58pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Magicman! says...

In your own mind maybe.

Are you really saying that somebody commenting that cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road is a prejudice of equal standing to racism, sexism and disabled descrimination? Wow.

Summing up with 'wow' isn't really a fitting enough description. Read carefully what I was responding to, and the fact the person who wrote what I had quoted wrote it in capitals as if shouting. They might as well be shouting "EDL" because it is the same level of hatred towards somebody of a group different to themselves. Having a personal dislike of somebody is one thing, but to have a vicious hatred of somebody to go onto a public page and voice that opinion along with how the targets of their hatred should be restricted in their civil liberties is morally objectionabale - The Press wouldn't allow such comments to remain on their site if the hatred was against LGBT.

As for point 2 and the "paying in equally", that is also questionable. Let's say two people pay money to hit a wall with a hammer (quite an odd situation, but read on to see where I'm going with this)... person one pay's £5 and hits the wall with a pin hammer, person 2 pays £5 and hits the wall with a 40lb lumphammer - what causes the most damage?? Relate that to the road, and a person walking or using a bicycle pays the same amount of council tax as a person who drives everywhere, yet a bicycle only weighs 20-40kg whilst a car weighs upwards of 1,000kg and so causes much more damage to the road surfaces, in addition to creating pollution (buses cause more road damage than cars, but the owners of such vehicles pay a much larger bill to central government in order to run them on the road, and is also balanced out by the fact their operation employs people). If we went to a system where each vehicle was insured, had registration plates, and was charged to use the roads of a city, cars would be charged several times more than bicycles - but yet in the current system, they are not and yet use the same roads and create big gashes and potholes that cyclists then end up riding through and possibly thrown off their bikes as a result. This can also happen to motorcyclists if the hole is big enough. So the question of "paying in equally" only really stands if the 'equal payment' is directly proportional to the infastructure damage caused by the use of the roads in the vehicle of choice.
In your own mind maybe. [quote]Are you really saying that somebody commenting that cyclist shouldn't be allowed on the road is a prejudice of equal standing to racism, sexism and disabled descrimination? Wow.[/quote] Summing up with 'wow' isn't really a fitting enough description. Read carefully what I was responding to, and the fact the person who wrote what I had quoted wrote it in capitals as if shouting. They might as well be shouting "EDL" because it is the same level of hatred towards somebody of a group different to themselves. Having a personal dislike of somebody is one thing, but to have a vicious hatred of somebody to go onto a public page and voice that opinion along with how the targets of their hatred should be restricted in their civil liberties is morally objectionabale - The Press wouldn't allow such comments to remain on their site if the hatred was against LGBT. As for point 2 and the "paying in equally", that is also questionable. Let's say two people pay money to hit a wall with a hammer (quite an odd situation, but read on to see where I'm going with this)... person one pay's £5 and hits the wall with a pin hammer, person 2 pays £5 and hits the wall with a 40lb lumphammer - what causes the most damage?? Relate that to the road, and a person walking or using a bicycle pays the same amount of council tax as a person who drives everywhere, yet a bicycle only weighs 20-40kg whilst a car weighs upwards of 1,000kg and so causes much more damage to the road surfaces, in addition to creating pollution (buses cause more road damage than cars, but the owners of such vehicles pay a much larger bill to central government in order to run them on the road, and is also balanced out by the fact their operation employs people). If we went to a system where each vehicle was insured, had registration plates, and was charged to use the roads of a city, cars would be charged several times more than bicycles - but yet in the current system, they are not and yet use the same roads and create big gashes and potholes that cyclists then end up riding through and possibly thrown off their bikes as a result. This can also happen to motorcyclists if the hole is big enough. So the question of "paying in equally" only really stands if the 'equal payment' is directly proportional to the infastructure damage caused by the use of the roads in the vehicle of choice. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree