York ‘most popular destination’ for city breaks

York ‘most popular destination’ for city breaks

York ‘most popular destination’ for city breaks

First published in News

YORK has been named as the most popular destination for city breaks in the UK.

Research by short break specialist Superbreak puts the city in the top spot for 2013, ahead of long-standing number one destination Edinburgh, which is now second.

The findings, revealed as part of the company’s annual booking trends report, put Manchester at third, Windermere and South Lakes fourth, and Stratford-upon-Avon at fifth.

Yorkshire fared well in the top ten, with Leeds placing seventh, and Harrogate ninth.

Reviewing figures from the last three years, Superbreak also found that the favourite destination of people living in Yorkshire, for a few days away, is in fact Yorkshire.

Jane Atkins at York-based Superbreak said: “Those of us in the region know that Yorkshire has so much to offer, whether it’s exploring the stunning landscapes, discovering the historical towns, or getting involved in the masses of cultural activities on offer.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:52am Thu 23 Jan 14

matroom says...

Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander. matroom
  • Score: 14

9:57am Thu 23 Jan 14

maccagraeme says...

matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
18 minutes before the first Lendal Bridge comment?! You guys are slipping......
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]18 minutes before the first Lendal Bridge comment?! You guys are slipping...... maccagraeme
  • Score: -19

10:05am Thu 23 Jan 14

anth!! says...

matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Yawn Yawn
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Yawn Yawn anth!!
  • Score: -70

10:07am Thu 23 Jan 14

boroboy66 says...

Tourists get let off its only the york residents who get fined isnt it.?
Tourists get let off its only the york residents who get fined isnt it.? boroboy66
  • Score: 43

10:24am Thu 23 Jan 14

Bad magic says...

Does "city break" mean "come from the North-East and get offensively drunk all weekend"? Because I can see that being the case.
Does "city break" mean "come from the North-East and get offensively drunk all weekend"? Because I can see that being the case. Bad magic
  • Score: 36

11:09am Thu 23 Jan 14

mjgyork says...

matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more. mjgyork
  • Score: -18

11:30am Thu 23 Jan 14

matroom says...

mjgyork wrote:
matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.
The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ???
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.[/p][/quote]The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ??? matroom
  • Score: -73

12:05pm Thu 23 Jan 14

mjgyork says...

matroom wrote:
mjgyork wrote:
matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.
The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ???
Of course it is dear. Keep taking the tablets.
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.[/p][/quote]The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ???[/p][/quote]Of course it is dear. Keep taking the tablets. mjgyork
  • Score: 67

2:44pm Thu 23 Jan 14

AntMcM says...

By the time this Council are through wrecking the city centre God knows where York will be. Do they actually want visitors or do they just want everyone to go to Monks Cross? Vote them OUT at the next election!
By the time this Council are through wrecking the city centre God knows where York will be. Do they actually want visitors or do they just want everyone to go to Monks Cross? Vote them OUT at the next election! AntMcM
  • Score: -66

2:50pm Thu 23 Jan 14

the original Homer says...

York coming top is good, but this report included people who booked "City breaks" in Windermere and Stratford-upon-Avon, which aren't Cities and aren't even big towns..

Makes you wonder about the accuracy of their data.

Then I saw the real reason why York came top. The report is based on bookings taken by one travel company, who happen to be based in York. Not being funny, but maost people booking with them will either be from York, or wanting to visit York. They're unlikely to get a fair cross-section of people. For example, someone living in Birmingham and wanting to visit London.

All the report really shows is that the mix of people booking with this particular company may have changed. Maybe they used to mainly deal with York people travelling out of York, and they now deal more with tourists travelling into York? That could be down to lots of reasons, not necessarily meaning York is more popular. It could be something as simple as the company running new adverts ouside the area.

It's a bit like saying the Astra has overtaken the Focus as the top selling car charts, based on a sales report by Smith Vauxhall, formally known as Smith Ford.
York coming top is good, but this report included people who booked "City breaks" in Windermere and Stratford-upon-Avon, which aren't Cities and aren't even big towns.. Makes you wonder about the accuracy of their data. Then I saw the real reason why York came top. The report is based on bookings taken by one travel company, who happen to be based in York. Not being funny, but maost people booking with them will either be from York, or wanting to visit York. They're unlikely to get a fair cross-section of people. For example, someone living in Birmingham and wanting to visit London. All the report really shows is that the mix of people booking with this particular company may have changed. Maybe they used to mainly deal with York people travelling out of York, and they now deal more with tourists travelling into York? That could be down to lots of reasons, not necessarily meaning York is more popular. It could be something as simple as the company running new adverts ouside the area. It's a bit like saying the Astra has overtaken the Focus as the top selling car charts, based on a sales report by Smith Vauxhall, formally known as Smith Ford. the original Homer
  • Score: -18

4:20pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Caecilius says...

matroom wrote:
mjgyork wrote:
matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.
The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ???
Only for drivers who don't give a toss about other road users. Like the shaven-headed bloke with specs who accelerated through the red light on Bridge Street about quarter to four this afternoon, the driver who accelerated through the red light on Water Lane not long afterwards, and White Van Man and an elderly woman in a car who'd both decided that the Shipton Road/Rawcliffe Lane box junction doesn't apply to them. Which proves mjgyork's point.
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.[/p][/quote]The cycle lane is a parking space isnt it ???[/p][/quote]Only for drivers who don't give a toss about other road users. Like the shaven-headed bloke with specs who accelerated through the red light on Bridge Street about quarter to four this afternoon, the driver who accelerated through the red light on Water Lane not long afterwards, and White Van Man and an elderly woman in a car who'd both decided that the Shipton Road/Rawcliffe Lane box junction doesn't apply to them. Which proves mjgyork's point. Caecilius
  • Score: 19

4:24pm Thu 23 Jan 14

matroom says...

You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!!
You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!! matroom
  • Score: -14

5:46pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Steve, says...

mjgyork wrote:
matroom wrote:
Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.
Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.
You're an idiot, it's about the Council thinking they have a right to dictate what roads we can and cannot use - York is a working city and not a tourist priority zone.
I pay my fees and do not see why I cannot use Lendal, when a taxi can which gives them a monopolised market. Why should I pay to get across the city centre in a taxi after paying my own car fees to use the city as a whole?

Wake up!
[quote][p][bold]mjgyork[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: Wont be number 1 for long when all the tourist are getting fined ??!!!! Sort it out alexander.[/p][/quote]Give it a rest! If they cannot read and obey a road sign, we don't want them here! There are already enough pedestrians and cyclists hospitalised by the inconsiderate drivers we already have. Like the woman this morning who thinks that the cycle lane is a parking space! We do not need any more.[/p][/quote]You're an idiot, it's about the Council thinking they have a right to dictate what roads we can and cannot use - York is a working city and not a tourist priority zone. I pay my fees and do not see why I cannot use Lendal, when a taxi can which gives them a monopolised market. Why should I pay to get across the city centre in a taxi after paying my own car fees to use the city as a whole? Wake up! Steve,
  • Score: -11

9:04pm Thu 23 Jan 14

cfbrown73 says...

I have been fined for going over the Lendal Bridge and did not see the signs. This was due to people dashing in front of the car when crossing the road. I admit I wasn't going at any pace and, arguably, should have noticed the signs but my concentration was on not hitting the Asian tourists.

Since I have received the fine I have decided not to come to York and take my business to Leeds. If the conversation arises then I recommend that nobody should travel to York due to the confusing, poorly signed traffic measures.

If 80% of the people fined are visitors to York then the council really need their heads looked at. 100% of the 80% will be saying "don't go to York". In the long term the council have really booted York city centre in the plums.

It will take a long time, after the initial cold sweat, for York city centre to get its breath back and hold onto the title of "most popular destination city".
I have been fined for going over the Lendal Bridge and did not see the signs. This was due to people dashing in front of the car when crossing the road. I admit I wasn't going at any pace and, arguably, should have noticed the signs but my concentration was on not hitting the Asian tourists. Since I have received the fine I have decided not to come to York and take my business to Leeds. If the conversation arises then I recommend that nobody should travel to York due to the confusing, poorly signed traffic measures. If 80% of the people fined are visitors to York then the council really need their heads looked at. 100% of the 80% will be saying "don't go to York". In the long term the council have really booted York city centre in the plums. It will take a long time, after the initial cold sweat, for York city centre to get its breath back and hold onto the title of "most popular destination city". cfbrown73
  • Score: -60

12:42am Fri 24 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

matroom wrote:
You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!!
That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction.
To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over.

If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes.
[quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!![/p][/quote]That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction. To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over. If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes. Magicman!
  • Score: 2

12:44am Fri 24 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Jane Atkins at York-based Superbreak said: “Those of us in the region know that Yorkshire has so much to offer, whether it’s exploring the stunning landscapes, discovering the historical towns, or getting involved in the masses of cultural activities on offer.”

This is all well and good for those that can drive to the best locations in the region... but for those who use public transport, vast swathes of Yorkshire aren't connected very well at all. Try researching for a weeks' holiday in the Dales using just bus and rail services and see how well you get on.
[quote]Jane Atkins at York-based Superbreak said: “Those of us in the region know that Yorkshire has so much to offer, whether it’s exploring the stunning landscapes, discovering the historical towns, or getting involved in the masses of cultural activities on offer.” [/quote] This is all well and good for those that can drive to the best locations in the region... but for those who use public transport, vast swathes of Yorkshire aren't connected very well at all. Try researching for a weeks' holiday in the Dales using just bus and rail services and see how well you get on. Magicman!
  • Score: 4

7:27am Fri 24 Jan 14

Igiveinthen says...

Magicman! wrote:
Jane Atkins at York-based Superbreak said: “Those of us in the region know that Yorkshire has so much to offer, whether it’s exploring the stunning landscapes, discovering the historical towns, or getting involved in the masses of cultural activities on offer.”

This is all well and good for those that can drive to the best locations in the region... but for those who use public transport, vast swathes of Yorkshire aren't connected very well at all. Try researching for a weeks' holiday in the Dales using just bus and rail services and see how well you get on.
Yes agreed, trying to explore the dales using only public transport would be difficult, but that is not what public transport is for is it? It's moving the general public from A to B, there are private coach companies offering breaks in the Dales for those without a car or just want to leave it at home and be chauffeured around and enjoy the scenery.
Also yet again the original comment gets hijacked by Yorks present "hot potatoe" i.e. the Lendal Bridge debate!
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote]Jane Atkins at York-based Superbreak said: “Those of us in the region know that Yorkshire has so much to offer, whether it’s exploring the stunning landscapes, discovering the historical towns, or getting involved in the masses of cultural activities on offer.” [/quote] This is all well and good for those that can drive to the best locations in the region... but for those who use public transport, vast swathes of Yorkshire aren't connected very well at all. Try researching for a weeks' holiday in the Dales using just bus and rail services and see how well you get on.[/p][/quote]Yes agreed, trying to explore the dales using only public transport would be difficult, but that is not what public transport is for is it? It's moving the general public from A to B, there are private coach companies offering breaks in the Dales for those without a car or just want to leave it at home and be chauffeured around and enjoy the scenery. Also yet again the original comment gets hijacked by Yorks present "hot potatoe" i.e. the Lendal Bridge debate! Igiveinthen
  • Score: 1

8:51am Fri 24 Jan 14

the original Homer says...

Magicman! wrote:
matroom wrote: You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!!
That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction. To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over. If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes.
What about a car which enters the green box on a green light, and then stops there because something happens with the traffic ahead? - Green cycle boxes aren't the same as yellow box junctions, (a car can enter them even if its exit isn't clear).

Easy to imagine a cyclist then coming along, not being aware of the point you just made about crossing the red light / solid line and not being aware of the point I just made about the car entering the box.

In that example, the car has the right to occupy the green box, and the cyclist has no right to enter it.

Easy to imagine that cyclist getting irate at the car driver, who has actualy done no wrong.

Solid lines, and who can cross them when are a minefield. The root cause of the problem is the law and the signage.

The real-world solution is to accept that there are very few parts of the roads where either cyclists or cars really have totally exclusive use.

The safe "rule" is to assume any road user already beyond a solid line has more right to that space than any road user who has to cross the line to get there.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!![/p][/quote]That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction. To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over. If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes.[/p][/quote]What about a car which enters the green box on a green light, and then stops there because something happens with the traffic ahead? - Green cycle boxes aren't the same as yellow box junctions, (a car can enter them even if its exit isn't clear). Easy to imagine a cyclist then coming along, not being aware of the point you just made about crossing the red light / solid line and not being aware of the point I just made about the car entering the box. In that example, the car has the right to occupy the green box, and the cyclist has no right to enter it. Easy to imagine that cyclist getting irate at the car driver, who has actualy done no wrong. Solid lines, and who can cross them when are a minefield. The root cause of the problem is the law and the signage. The real-world solution is to accept that there are very few parts of the roads where either cyclists or cars really have totally exclusive use. The safe "rule" is to assume any road user already beyond a solid line has more right to that space than any road user who has to cross the line to get there. the original Homer
  • Score: 7

9:47am Fri 24 Jan 14

Firedrake says...

I may be wrong, but I should imagine most people on "City Breaks" arrive and depart by train, so the Lendal Bridge issue is hardly relevant.
I may be wrong, but I should imagine most people on "City Breaks" arrive and depart by train, so the Lendal Bridge issue is hardly relevant. Firedrake
  • Score: 0

10:05am Fri 24 Jan 14

york_chap says...

Green cycle boxes are unsightly and are a real pain. They encourage cyclists to force their way to the front of traffic queues, even where there clearly isn't space for them to weave past the stationary vehicles. I've now had my car hit by cyclists three times in York whilst it was stationary/moving slowly in queuing traffic. Didn't get any acknowledgement or apology on any occasion (and these were all older cyclists; not hooded 15 year old delinquents).

Funny that; as the one time I overtook a cyclist in a narrow spot he was all too quick to start remonstrating in the street. To be fair I enjoyed it as I'm a guy who likes a good argument and he was very entertaining; getting all angry in his day-glow waistcoat and plastic helmet; but that's not the point.
Green cycle boxes are unsightly and are a real pain. They encourage cyclists to force their way to the front of traffic queues, even where there clearly isn't space for them to weave past the stationary vehicles. I've now had my car hit by cyclists three times in York whilst it was stationary/moving slowly in queuing traffic. Didn't get any acknowledgement or apology on any occasion (and these were all older cyclists; not hooded 15 year old delinquents). Funny that; as the one time I overtook a cyclist in a narrow spot he was all too quick to start remonstrating in the street. To be fair I enjoyed it as I'm a guy who likes a good argument and he was very entertaining; getting all angry in his day-glow waistcoat and plastic helmet; but that's not the point. york_chap
  • Score: 7

12:42pm Fri 24 Jan 14

TCJYork says...

Why do people think cyclists are some mutually exclusive breed? You do know that most are also 'car drivers', 'pedestrians', 'men', 'women' etc.

If someone behaves like an inconsiderate idiot, it is likely because they are an inconsiderate idiot - regardless of the form of transport they're using.
Why do people think cyclists are some mutually exclusive breed? You do know that most are also 'car drivers', 'pedestrians', 'men', 'women' etc. If someone behaves like an inconsiderate idiot, it is likely because they are an inconsiderate idiot - regardless of the form of transport they're using. TCJYork
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Fri 24 Jan 14

matroom says...

the original Homer wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
matroom wrote: You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!!
That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction. To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over. If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes.
What about a car which enters the green box on a green light, and then stops there because something happens with the traffic ahead? - Green cycle boxes aren't the same as yellow box junctions, (a car can enter them even if its exit isn't clear).

Easy to imagine a cyclist then coming along, not being aware of the point you just made about crossing the red light / solid line and not being aware of the point I just made about the car entering the box.

In that example, the car has the right to occupy the green box, and the cyclist has no right to enter it.

Easy to imagine that cyclist getting irate at the car driver, who has actualy done no wrong.

Solid lines, and who can cross them when are a minefield. The root cause of the problem is the law and the signage.

The real-world solution is to accept that there are very few parts of the roads where either cyclists or cars really have totally exclusive use.

The safe "rule" is to assume any road user already beyond a solid line has more right to that space than any road user who has to cross the line to get there.
The best comment so far.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]matroom[/bold] wrote: You dont own the green cycle boxes, sometimes, due to traffic, we as car drivers have to stop in them ?? Then along comes the nazi cycling brigade shaking its head at you !!!![/p][/quote]That is because it is ILLEGAL to proceed beyond the 1st stop line into the cycle green box once the red light is showing. If the red light is showing and then you drive into the green box, you have passed a stop line on a red signal - which carries the same implications and case for prosecution as driving straight through the red light into the junction. To be honest really, the way that law is worded it also means that cyclists can only enter the green box if there is a feed-in cycle lane and/or a staggered line into the box where they cross over. If York council really means what it says about "cycling city york" and all that crap is spoute out, it'll install cameras above traffic light heads to monitor the cycle boxes - so that any car occupying it for more than 8 seconds gets a £60 fine. Take a look at how things work in London, they even have mobile camera cars and use cameras on the buses to enforce similar laws and give out fines to people driving/parking on the cycle lanes.[/p][/quote]What about a car which enters the green box on a green light, and then stops there because something happens with the traffic ahead? - Green cycle boxes aren't the same as yellow box junctions, (a car can enter them even if its exit isn't clear). Easy to imagine a cyclist then coming along, not being aware of the point you just made about crossing the red light / solid line and not being aware of the point I just made about the car entering the box. In that example, the car has the right to occupy the green box, and the cyclist has no right to enter it. Easy to imagine that cyclist getting irate at the car driver, who has actualy done no wrong. Solid lines, and who can cross them when are a minefield. The root cause of the problem is the law and the signage. The real-world solution is to accept that there are very few parts of the roads where either cyclists or cars really have totally exclusive use. The safe "rule" is to assume any road user already beyond a solid line has more right to that space than any road user who has to cross the line to get there.[/p][/quote]The best comment so far. matroom
  • Score: 3

3:33pm Fri 24 Jan 14

the original Homer says...

TCJYork wrote:
Why do people think cyclists are some mutually exclusive breed? You do know that most are also 'car drivers', 'pedestrians', 'men', 'women' etc. If someone behaves like an inconsiderate idiot, it is likely because they are an inconsiderate idiot - regardless of the form of transport they're using.
This is generally true, and as a regular cyclist and car driver myself, I do sometimes wonder about the "us and them" comments.

I consider myself in the category of "considerate, non-idiot" and I obey the highway code whether in a vehicle, on my bike, or on foot.

As you said, the "inconsidertae idiots" might be inconsiderate and idiotic by nature, regardless of their form of transport. My view is that getting on a bike is also a factor in how much idiotic behaviour they display.

By that I mean only the most idiotic of the 'multi-mode' road users would drivie a car through a red light, or drive through a gap between pedestrians crossing the road. However, there is a group who wouldn't do it in their car, but would do it on their bike.

They are then interpreting (ignoring?) the law, as they see fit, based on some sense of right vs wrong. Once you get into that territory, it comes down to each individual's snese of where to draw the line. I'm sure that there are times and places where riding a bike through a red light is safe. I can see why people do it, because stopping and setting off again uses a lot more energy. I thnk the point is that SOMEcyclists (not all) can then get so used to doing it that their judgement becomes a bit blurred, and they do it when they shouldn't.

I maintain that the majority of people who ride a bike like that would still be a bit more cautious in a car.

So, I think there is a category of "latent idiots" who drive normally, but ride inconsiderately. It only takes a few for the mud to stick and all cyclists be categorised the same.

On the other side of the coin, I suppose there will be some ultra-cautious bike riders, who become maniacs when they get in a tin box..
[quote][p][bold]TCJYork[/bold] wrote: Why do people think cyclists are some mutually exclusive breed? You do know that most are also 'car drivers', 'pedestrians', 'men', 'women' etc. If someone behaves like an inconsiderate idiot, it is likely because they are an inconsiderate idiot - regardless of the form of transport they're using.[/p][/quote]This is generally true, and as a regular cyclist and car driver myself, I do sometimes wonder about the "us and them" comments. I consider myself in the category of "considerate, non-idiot" and I obey the highway code whether in a vehicle, on my bike, or on foot. As you said, the "inconsidertae idiots" might be inconsiderate and idiotic by nature, regardless of their form of transport. My view is that getting on a bike is also a factor in how much idiotic behaviour they display. By that I mean only the most idiotic of the 'multi-mode' road users would drivie a car through a red light, or drive through a gap between pedestrians crossing the road. However, there is a group who wouldn't do it in their car, but would do it on their bike. They are then interpreting (ignoring?) the law, as they see fit, based on some sense of right vs wrong. Once you get into that territory, it comes down to each individual's snese of where to draw the line. I'm sure that there are times and places where riding a bike through a red light is safe. I can see why people do it, because stopping and setting off again uses a lot more energy. I thnk the point is that SOMEcyclists (not all) can then get so used to doing it that their judgement becomes a bit blurred, and they do it when they shouldn't. I maintain that the majority of people who ride a bike like that would still be a bit more cautious in a car. So, I think there is a category of "latent idiots" who drive normally, but ride inconsiderately. It only takes a few for the mud to stick and all cyclists be categorised the same. On the other side of the coin, I suppose there will be some ultra-cautious bike riders, who become maniacs when they get in a tin box.. the original Homer
  • Score: 4

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