New cycle network for York’s changing needs (From York Press)

Remove all the articles which hinge on the words 'could be' and there'd be about half as many stories on here...

Good stuff. Cyclists needs should take precedence over drivers to encourage more people to cycle in the city and leave their cars at home. Hopefully this will ease congestion for all.

50 responses from a city of 145,000? That means under 0.004% of the population bothered to respond - and 99.996% didn't.

Why should the council be able to justify doing anything on such an infinitesimal level of interest?

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
50 responses from a city of 145,000? That means under 0.004% of the population bothered to respond - and 99.996% didn't.

Why should the council be able to justify doing anything on such an infinitesimal level of interest?

'Cos PPsays so!

About 50 responses recieved...and not all would be in favour....a pathetic response level given Yorks population.
I am a cyclist but understand why those who are not get angry when a large sum will be spent to satisfy so few
the only real sum that is needed is using the verge around the ring road for a very basic cycling surface to seperate cyclists from cars to enable cyclists to navigate around the City safely as its the ring road that's the death trap for cyclists

in ten years time when merrett,d agorne and their like have won their anti car campaign in york,the city centre will be a desolate,run down place visited by tourists who ll come once and never again.with new out of town shopping centres and extortionate parking charges the residents won t bother,not that there will be any shops worth coming in for.

sheps lad wrote:

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
50 responses from a city of 145,000? That means under 0.004% of the population bothered to respond - and 99.996% didn't.

Why should the council be able to justify doing anything on such an infinitesimal level of interest?

'Cos PPsays so!

According to wiki (!) the population of york is actually 202,000, although within a paragraph it's 198,000. egardless, it's significantly more people who don't care about cycling!!

How about putting money into repairing the already built roads that have cracked open?

How about JetPacks for all?

or personal helicopters?

How about clearly defining where current cycle paths already are in order to protect the more vulnerable pedestrians - oh! they already are, but ignored by the more ignorant and selfish cyclists. If you want me to back up my statement, try Scarcroft park with its clearly marked out cycle path and yet cyclist use the footpath through the middle of the park and even expect the pedestrians to get out of the way.

There is nothing wrong with cycling on most of York's roads - fix them and stop wasting money on these things!

Come on council,spend spend spend,us council tax payers can afford it.Build some lovely little bike paths and tunnels and pretty signs,its only money.

Much of the funding will come from Central govt, via a recent grant from its Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
Other contribution may be requested from developers. The overall cost to York's Council Tax payers will be significantly less than some believe it to be.
If increases in car use continued without restraint , then York would begin to experience continual gridlock in a couple of decades from now. we can't build our way out of congestion with new roads. These would simply encourage yet more car travel.
The real future for York lies in more car sharing, priority for public transport plus of course walking and cycling. That alone will create enough capacity for essential car users.
Come the next local elections, ignore the candidates who promise jam tomorrow for the motorist. All they would give you is bigger jams tomorrow!!

'The current network was adopted 17 years ago, but Coun Merrett said the city had changed greatly since that time.'

..yes.. I guess it has.. no Rowntrees, no Terrys, no Armstrongs, Railway.. etc, etc.. Everybody has to travel considerably further to work.. unless of course you work on a tour bus.

Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

Excellent news. Good to see the council focusing on something positive to health and the environment. Only question is why can't this be done quicker.

Sooner we encourage a new generation to adopt a healthy lifestyle the better. We'll have less idle fatties clogging the roads, hospitals wards and their arteries as a result.

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

You sound very much as though you base your lifestyle decisions on car use. Rather like deciding to live in a posh area on one side of the city,and choosing a posh school on the other side. Then it's out with the 4x 4 to swell the school run traffic.
Why can't your kids cycle to football ...?
Can you cycle to a train station for your commute?
Your choices of where to live and work are yours.If you make car dependant choices, you must be prepared for the consequences of adding to peak road usage.

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
50 responses from a city of 145,000? That means under 0.004% of the population bothered to respond - and 99.996% didn't.

Why should the council be able to justify doing anything on such an infinitesimal level of interest?

For a start, nobody was told of this consultation - especially as the Press obviousy decided not to run any sort of article to make people aware there was a consultation... I would have responded if I'd have known.... maybe somebody had been out planting newts and the press reported on that instead or something.........

invisibleman wrote:
How about clearly defining where current cycle paths already are in order to protect the more vulnerable pedestrians - oh! they already are, but ignored by the more ignorant and selfish cyclists. If you want me to back up my statement, try Scarcroft park with its clearly marked out cycle path and yet cyclist use the footpath through the middle of the park and even expect the pedestrians to get out of the way.

And likewise in Scarcroft we have apparently blind pedestrians who haven't a clue what that big thick raised white line in the middle of the pathway is all about, and decide to walk both sides of it then seem suprised when a cycle rings the bell at them.... or those at Monks Cross shopping park who have a lovely 3 meters wide pavement in front of all the shops yet still decide to walk along the cycle route, clearly marked out with cycle symbols and a zebra strip down the middle - but if a cyclist tells them they're walking on the wrong bit: "f*** off is the response". Or cycling down the shared pavement of Millfield Lane (Poppleton) and a bloke walking his dog the other way, all over the entire pavement and only pulls his dog in at the very last second when he realises the bike isn't stopping, then says "oh road's real busy isn't it" in a sarcastic manner, too thick to understand the big white line.... or along Water End in Clifton, where at either the Salisbury Road end of opposite Government House Road there is a pedestrian crossing because the clearly marked cycle lane states CYCLES ONLY (at at the western end has a metal fence to stop people inadvertantly walking on to the cycle lane, which is only for cycles and is NOT a shared pavement), and yet a cyclist can come face to face with some completely stupid pedestrian who cannot read two simple words, CYCLES ONLY, and understand the meaning.... ie CROSS THE ROAD AND GET ON THE PROPER SIDE!

... works both ways....

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

20 mile commute: essential,
15 mile trip with kids to football, especially in cold or rainy weather: semi-essential, but commuting to work over a long distance is more essential, especially if the workplace is not directly accessible by public transport (ie bus or taking a bike on the train)
8 mile trip to tesco: depends on what you're getting - if it's a full weekly shop then it technically is essential, although you can buy a cycle trailer and put the groceries all in that; if you're just going to Tesco for a bottle of milk and that's it then you might as well go on a bike.

BL2 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with cycling on most of York's roads - fix them and stop wasting money on these things!

Apart from a few points: Huntington Road from Byland Avenue up to Huntington A1237 roundabout - cycle lane noticeably narrower than DfT's recommended 2 meter width, or 1.5m minimum width - in some areas of Huntington the cycle path is less than 30cm (or 300 millimeters) wide, which is the length of the ruler you had in your school bag, and is less that the width of a bike; Haxby York Road from Haxby Gates up to main roundabout - same problem as Huntington Road... both examples are actually MORE DANGEROUS than not having the cycle lanes there at all, as scientific tests have shown that car drivers pass bikes closer and at a faster speed when a white line is there seperating the route the cyclist is taking from the route the car is taking... it's all well and good if the cycle lane is 2m wide as the bike has enough wobble room, but when the cycle path is not even as wide as the bike itself and goes over every drain cover then it is purely and simply dangerous without exception.

Other notes: there's no cycle route from Wigginton Road railway crossing to Wigginton; no 'seamless' cycle route from Tesco Clifton Moor to Wigginton Road Bumper Castle (involves crossing the road and/or waiting at a red light of some description); no offroad cycle route from Strensall, Huntington, or New Earswick to the city centre; no cycle route from Wigginton Road to Haxby Road roundabouts on the A1237; no direct cycle route from Wigginton Road Bumper Castle to New Earswick Folk Hall without making a major backtrack; no direct off-road cycle route from the hospital to the train station; cycle lanes along Crichton Avenue always have a 'Numark' van and a Fiat Punto parked on them, therefore rendering the cycle lane provision void and pointless; cycle lanes in the city centre either die out and the point when you need them the most, or if there is one it gets a car sat over it in a queue of traffic as the driver is waiting to turn left up at the lights some distance away; most on-road cycle lanes are where all the pot holes are, whilst most off-road cycle lanes get glassed every other day by chavs; where on-pavement cycle lanes meet a side road, for some strange reason the side road is often given priority, which flies in the face of the generally-accepted continental approach whereby roads of a lesser importance have their give way lines set back behind the cycle lane so the cycle lane has priority as if it were on the road (examples of where this has been done though is the James Street travellers site, and two side roads off Malton Road insluding Muncastergate)....

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

Typical comment from people who choose to live somewhere then whine that they have to travel a long way to get to the things they want to do. Move or choose to shop and entertain your kids locally. If not, don't play hard done by - just makes you look like a dick.

pedalling paul wrote:

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

You sound very much as though you base your lifestyle decisions on car use. Rather like deciding to live in a posh area on one side of the city,and choosing a posh school on the other side. Then it's out with the 4x 4 to swell the school run traffic.
Why can't your kids cycle to football ...?
Can you cycle to a train station for your commute?
Your choices of where to live and work are yours.If you make car dependant choices, you must be prepared for the consequences of adding to peak road usage.

Thank you Paul, with that answer you have just myself and probably many other people just how deluded you and your ideas really are.
You have zero idea of what it is like to live and work outside of the immediate city centre.
And yes, I do base my lifestyle decisions on car use. I have no choice, I don't live within a stones throw of the city centre like you. I don't live with in a stones throw of work, like you did. I don't get free rail travel like you do.
You must be the most least qualified person to advise anyone how to commute.

Most least. :D

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:

pedalling paul wrote:

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

You sound very much as though you base your lifestyle decisions on car use. Rather like deciding to live in a posh area on one side of the city,and choosing a posh school on the other side. Then it's out with the 4x 4 to swell the school run traffic.
Why can't your kids cycle to football ...?
Can you cycle to a train station for your commute?
Your choices of where to live and work are yours.If you make car dependant choices, you must be prepared for the consequences of adding to peak road usage.

Thank you Paul, with that answer you have just myself and probably many other people just how deluded you and your ideas really are.
You have zero idea of what it is like to live and work outside of the immediate city centre.
And yes, I do base my lifestyle decisions on car use. I have no choice, I don't live within a stones throw of the city centre like you. I don't live with in a stones throw of work, like you did. I don't get free rail travel like you do.
You must be the most least qualified person to advise anyone how to commute.

I chose where to live. Presumably you did as well. No-one is denying you the right to live out in the sticks. But presumably you support measures which encourage we suburbanites to make intelligent travel choices, so that you have more road capacity for your essential car journeys......

pedalling paul wrote:

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:

pedalling paul wrote:

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

You sound very much as though you base your lifestyle decisions on car use. Rather like deciding to live in a posh area on one side of the city,and choosing a posh school on the other side. Then it's out with the 4x 4 to swell the school run traffic.
Why can't your kids cycle to football ...?
Can you cycle to a train station for your commute?
Your choices of where to live and work are yours.If you make car dependant choices, you must be prepared for the consequences of adding to peak road usage.

Thank you Paul, with that answer you have just myself and probably many other people just how deluded you and your ideas really are.
You have zero idea of what it is like to live and work outside of the immediate city centre.
And yes, I do base my lifestyle decisions on car use. I have no choice, I don't live within a stones throw of the city centre like you. I don't live with in a stones throw of work, like you did. I don't get free rail travel like you do.
You must be the most least qualified person to advise anyone how to commute.

I chose where to live. Presumably you did as well. No-one is denying you the right to live out in the sticks. But presumably you support measures which encourage we suburbanites to make intelligent travel choices, so that you have more road capacity for your essential car journeys......

So now you are saying that everyone should choose to live and work within York?

I think you might find that it would get a little bit cramped for most peoples tastes.

Also when it comes to choosing where to live, most people have a circumstances that dictate where they can afford to live, which seriously narrows the choice of areas available to them.
Same as with work, I would love to be able to walk, saunter or even cycle, but circumstances dictate that it is just not possible.

I'm sure that the utopia you live in is very nice and fluffy, but it is so out of touch with reality that it is just not funny anymore.

Fourkov wrote:

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul, please define "essential car use"
you spout on about it constantly but have never explained to us simpletons what it actually means.
I use my car daily for a 20 mile round commute, would that be essential?
I use my car to take the kids to football 4 times a week, 15 mile round trip, is that essential?
I sometimes nip to Tesco, 8 mile commute, is that essential.
Please help me Paul because I think I must be missing your point somewhere along the line.

Typical comment from people who choose to live somewhere then whine that they have to travel a long way to get to the things they want to do. Move or choose to shop and entertain your kids locally. If not, don't play hard done by - just makes you look like a dick.

Please point out anywhere in my comments where I was whining about traveling a long way for anything?

And when it comes to "looking like a dick" as you put it, you win hands down every time with comments like that.