Drivers’ anger at Clifton Green bike lane revamp (From York Press)

Stu Pidd wrote:
My heart bleeds for you all. This cycle route is long overdue and the council should be commended for installing it. Perhaps 'angry resident' Margaret Barker's husband's utterly inexplicable THIRTY minute journey would be quicker if he made use of the new facilities rather than complain about the traffic which HE is part of? It's not even 1 mile from Ousecliffe Gardens to Boroughbridge road.

Stu Pidd wrote:
My heart bleeds for you all. This cycle route is long overdue and the council should be commended for installing it. Perhaps 'angry resident' Margaret Barker's husband's utterly inexplicable THIRTY minute journey would be quicker if he made use of the new facilities rather than complain about the traffic which HE is part of? It's not even 1 mile from Ousecliffe Gardens to Boroughbridge road.

LittleTed wrote:

Stu Pidd wrote: My heart bleeds for you all. This cycle route is long overdue and the council should be commended for installing it. Perhaps 'angry resident' Margaret Barker's husband's utterly inexplicable THIRTY minute journey would be quicker if he made use of the new facilities rather than complain about the traffic which HE is part of? It's not even 1 mile from Ousecliffe Gardens to Boroughbridge road.

Agree.

who are ya wrote:
I cycle and drive plus I walk. Whoever designed it wants a reality check! Is it legal to remove a footpath and repalce it with a cycle lane with no pedestrian rights? surely this is comes also under the disabilities act!

Son of Amigo wrote:

LittleTed wrote:

Stu Pidd wrote: My heart bleeds for you all. This cycle route is long overdue and the council should be commended for installing it. Perhaps 'angry resident' Margaret Barker's husband's utterly inexplicable THIRTY minute journey would be quicker if he made use of the new facilities rather than complain about the traffic which HE is part of? It's not even 1 mile from Ousecliffe Gardens to Boroughbridge road.

Agree.

The point is that literally hundreds of taxpayers and also bus passengers are now delayed for an extra 20 to 30 mins needlessly, of course we want all roadusers to be safe but there must be a better way of achieving this over Clifton Bridge.

Billy Whiz wrote:

Son of Amigo wrote:

LittleTed wrote:

Stu Pidd wrote: My heart bleeds for you all. This cycle route is long overdue and the council should be commended for installing it. Perhaps 'angry resident' Margaret Barker's husband's utterly inexplicable THIRTY minute journey would be quicker if he made use of the new facilities rather than complain about the traffic which HE is part of? It's not even 1 mile from Ousecliffe Gardens to Boroughbridge road.

Agree.

The point is that literally hundreds of taxpayers and also bus passengers are now delayed for an extra 20 to 30 mins needlessly, of course we want all roadusers to be safe but there must be a better way of achieving this over Clifton Bridge.

And there will be hundreds of taxpayers riding a bike safely, as for the bus users they can always catch an earlier bus to get to work, they do run every 10 mins! as usual there is a mountain made out of nothing here!

yorkboy60 wrote:
this bit is really funny "He described the new layout as “ludicrous”, adding: “I understand there’s a need for cycle lanes for safety, but we pay the road tax and our road has been taken away for the sake of cyclists.” erm, local roads are funded by council tax, not road tax. Road tax is actually vehicle excise duty which is charged on emissions, so even if bikes were liable, the cost would still be zero as they don't produce any emissions. Plus I'm guessing that 99% of people cycling in york are york residents, so they have fully paid to use the road, where as I'm guessing that figure isn't as high for car users. Usual story - people being lazy, their lazy ways get disturbed even more so they decide to whinge instead of doing something about it, like car share, cycle, walk, public transport.

voiceofreality wrote:
seen as most of the roads have now been given away to the bikers, maybe they should now be eligable to pay for its upkeeping! road tax, insurance, and a bike mot seen as this is all aimed at safty! Many bikes are unroadworthy, there is no backup by an insurance company if they run in to a padestrian, or another cyclist!. still at least the emergency services will now struggle to get to get anywhere fast with the extra congestion this has now caused! Kick out labour in the next election. dim wits!

voiceofreality wrote:
seen as most of the roads have now been given away to the bikers, maybe they should now be eligable to pay for its upkeeping! road tax, insurance, and a bike mot seen as this is all aimed at safty! Many bikes are unroadworthy, there is no backup by an insurance company if they run in to a padestrian, or another cyclist!. still at least the emergency services will now struggle to get to get anywhere fast with the extra congestion this has now caused! Kick out labour in the next election. dim wits!

yorkboy60 wrote:

voiceofreality wrote: seen as most of the roads have now been given away to the bikers, maybe they should now be eligable to pay for its upkeeping! road tax, insurance, and a bike mot seen as this is all aimed at safty! Many bikes are unroadworthy, there is no backup by an insurance company if they run in to a padestrian, or another cyclist!. still at least the emergency services will now struggle to get to get anywhere fast with the extra congestion this has now caused! Kick out labour in the next election. dim wits!

obviously you missed my post above. Most local roads are actually paid for by council tax as it's up to the local councils to do the upkeep on them, and current road tax is based on emissions, so bikes would be charged at nothing (like full electric cars). As for insurance, does that mean all pedestrians should have insurance as well in case they walk in to a cyclist/car? Plus there's more unroadworthy cars than there are bikes, and I know which I'd consider more dangerous.

voiceofreality wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

voiceofreality wrote: seen as most of the roads have now been given away to the bikers, maybe they should now be eligable to pay for its upkeeping! road tax, insurance, and a bike mot seen as this is all aimed at safty! Many bikes are unroadworthy, there is no backup by an insurance company if they run in to a padestrian, or another cyclist!. still at least the emergency services will now struggle to get to get anywhere fast with the extra congestion this has now caused! Kick out labour in the next election. dim wits!

obviously you missed my post above. Most local roads are actually paid for by council tax as it's up to the local councils to do the upkeep on them, and current road tax is based on emissions, so bikes would be charged at nothing (like full electric cars). As for insurance, does that mean all pedestrians should have insurance as well in case they walk in to a cyclist/car? Plus there's more unroadworthy cars than there are bikes, and I know which I'd consider more dangerous.

current road tax may have changed in the last couple of years! but lets not forget it was invented for the upkeeping of roads when it was introduced, that was what road tax was invented for! s for the insurance, well bikers use the roads, pedestrians don't, and yes when a biker pushes past a car and stratches it, or jumps off the curb in front of a car causing an accident,(like the iron bridge incident when the poor lad lost his life last year, rest his soul)he jumped the curd and went in to the car window. they should be insured plain and simple! Ok i'm was wrong on the lib dem. but so what! bikes use the roads, insurance at least should be a must.

Taken for a Mug wrote:
Another costly well thought out scheme to pander to the minority at the expense of the majority.

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch wrote:
She said: “The Clifton Bridge/Water End scheme is one section of a comprehensive network of cycle routes that will enable residents to get across the city by bike.” How on earth did cyclists manage before cycle routes. That's right they used those wide trips of tarmanc with a white line down the middle!! It would seem that it's the councils intent to turn more of our roads into cycle routes but they've definately ballsed this up. May I suggest Ruth Egan spend an hour or two studying the impact the scheme has had on conjestion and tailbacks. It would seem that no-one did this before launching the £500,000 works. I'm assuming all this hastily pushed through rubbish was in order to qualify for some government grant? Coupled with the Easter break now upon us, us motorists now face an awfully long trip home. I also don't understand the last paragraph by York's erstwhile cycling campaigner. How dare anyone use a car on a road. I mean the very thought of it!!!

meme wrote:
why was the cycle route not put accross the green

yorkshirelad wrote:
This junction has been far too narrow for two vehicle lanes for years. Dropping to one, adding a cycle lane and rephasing the lights a bit is an obvious solution. At peak times this road was physically blocked to cyclists making progress through stuck (usually single occupant) cars. It's in all of our interests that as many people as possible cycle in York - then the cars & the bikes & the buses might be able to move a bit. What a lot of huff and puff over nothing...as usual. The cyclists will gradually build up on the road as they alter their routes now that you can actually move.

Mullarkian wrote:
Just how many people want to cycle from one side of York to another or do their shopping by bike?
How did peole manage to cycle anywhere before lines were painted on roads to mark it out for them. If cyclists are unable to cycle on the left of a road or need lines to tel them where to go then they shouldn't be cycling.
Those cycle lanes that suddenly stop amuse me because what does the poor cyclist do then, disappear?
As for planning this scheme, well the phrase about breweries and parties is very appropriate.

yorkboy60 wrote:

voiceofreality wrote:

yorkboy60 wrote:

voiceofreality wrote: seen as most of the roads have now been given away to the bikers, maybe they should now be eligable to pay for its upkeeping! road tax, insurance, and a bike mot seen as this is all aimed at safty! Many bikes are unroadworthy, there is no backup by an insurance company if they run in to a padestrian, or another cyclist!. still at least the emergency services will now struggle to get to get anywhere fast with the extra congestion this has now caused! Kick out labour in the next election. dim wits!

obviously you missed my post above. Most local roads are actually paid for by council tax as it's up to the local councils to do the upkeep on them, and current road tax is based on emissions, so bikes would be charged at nothing (like full electric cars). As for insurance, does that mean all pedestrians should have insurance as well in case they walk in to a cyclist/car? Plus there's more unroadworthy cars than there are bikes, and I know which I'd consider more dangerous.

current road tax may have changed in the last couple of years! but lets not forget it was invented for the upkeeping of roads when it was introduced, that was what road tax was invented for! s for the insurance, well bikers use the roads, pedestrians don't, and yes when a biker pushes past a car and stratches it, or jumps off the curb in front of a car causing an accident,(like the iron bridge incident when the poor lad lost his life last year, rest his soul)he jumped the curd and went in to the car window. they should be insured plain and simple! Ok i'm was wrong on the lib dem. but so what! bikes use the roads, insurance at least should be a must.

hehehehe. Road tax stopped being used for the roads in about 1937!!!! So bleating onm about what is was for is a moot point and totally useless. As for the insurance thing it't not going to happen. More car drivers scratch other cars then bikes do, yet people don't claim for that. As for third party liability, which is what I believe you are trying to elude at, I believe the figures for pedestrains hurt/killed bu cyclists is lower then deaths/injuries caused by late night scuffles outside kebab shops and nightclubs, so by your reasoning everybody should have some form of insurance just in case. Plus pedestrains do use the roads too (otherwise how on earth would they cross the road?), just the same way that cyclists use the pavements (only in designated cycle/footpath areas) Your arguments seem to stem from the self rightous driver syndrome that is so prevelent in todays society. People believe they have a "right" to a car, and once they are in that car that they have a "right" to do x, y and z. It's very sad quite frankly.

MrsHoney wrote:
Why do people keep going on about single occupant cars?!! How many people do you think work at the same place, live in the same area, go to and leave work at the same time and have the same routine every single day?!! There aren't any where I work, (I get the bus anyway) it's a noble idea but very impracticle.

Top Banana wrote:

MrsHoney wrote: Why do people keep going on about single occupant cars?!! How many people do you think work at the same place, live in the same area, go to and leave work at the same time and have the same routine every single day?!! There aren't any where I work, (I get the bus anyway) it's a noble idea but very impracticle.

All the ones on Clifton Bridge seem to be going in the same direction and are in the same place at the same time?!

Top Banana wrote:
Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

MrsHoney wrote:

Top Banana wrote:

MrsHoney wrote: Why do people keep going on about single occupant cars?!! How many people do you think work at the same place, live in the same area, go to and leave work at the same time and have the same routine every single day?!! There aren't any where I work, (I get the bus anyway) it's a noble idea but very impracticle.

All the ones on Clifton Bridge seem to be going in the same direction and are in the same place at the same time?!

Yes and I'm sure they all came from the same place as well!!! Not.

They probably all set out at different times just ended up queued on the bridge!!

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote:
Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles.

also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote:
Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles.

also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

again wrote:
So the traffic has to wait a little longer before going on to join the bottleneck at Bootham. So what?

I guess there are loads of motorists who could cycle and leave their cars at home but don't thus spoiling it for those that, for a valid reason, cannot.

yorkshirelad wrote:

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote: Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles. also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

Was it therefore illegal for us to squeeze past in our cars when there were two lanes? Bus Lanes??

Smiler wrote:

yorkshirelad wrote:

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote: Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles. also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

Was it therefore illegal for us to squeeze past in our cars when there were two lanes? Bus Lanes??

and if there is a lane i don't park in it, however on roads like gillygate i sit next to the kerb.

Opinion8ed wrote:

Smiler wrote:

yorkshirelad wrote:

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote: Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles. also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

Was it therefore illegal for us to squeeze past in our cars when there were two lanes? Bus Lanes??

and if there is a lane i don't park in it, however on roads like gillygate i sit next to the kerb.

Ha ha that means that you're one of the people that annoy me in Gillygate on my bike, I tend to get round them then ride right in front of them very slowly, gets em every time. ****.

The Vicar wrote:

Opinion8ed wrote:

Smiler wrote:

yorkshirelad wrote:

Smiler wrote:

Top Banana wrote: Smiler - it's your fault the cycle lanes are popping up left right and centre if you block the progress of cyclists.

no it's the councils fault for making the roads so thin that drivers have to resort to parking next to the kerb to ensure the car is safe from large vehicles. also isn't it illegal to overtake on the inside?

Was it therefore illegal for us to squeeze past in our cars when there were two lanes? Bus Lanes??

and if there is a lane i don't park in it, however on roads like gillygate i sit next to the kerb.

Ha ha that means that you're one of the people that annoy me in Gillygate on my bike, I tend to get round them then ride right in front of them very slowly, gets em every time. ****.

Ha ha that means that you're one of the people that annoy me in Gillygate IN MY CAR, I tend to get round them then RUN THEM OFF THE ROAD, gets em every time. ****.

scooterboy wrote:
nice name peepod as a rule i think all trafic should be banned within the city walls so york would be free from air pollution up to a degree but what the muppets have done hear is pethetic a child would have worked it out better

peepod wrote:

scooterboy wrote:
nice name peepod as a rule i think all trafic should be banned within the city walls so york would be free from air pollution up to a degree but what the muppets have done hear is pethetic a child would have worked it out better

Sure, I wouldn’t be apposed to banning traffic from within the city walls, but Water End is a major route and reducing this to just one lane is an absolute joke. The vast majority of comments on this story show that while most people are not apposed to good safe cycle routes, but are shocked at the council’s logic at reducing the size of a major road.

ak7274 wrote:
How stupid was this scheme? Not only ill advised but absolutely STUPID. Guess where the traffic will go?..........The ring road. You know the one.........The car park to the north of york called the 1237. You bunch of berks. Do you not realise that staionery traffic pollutes up to 10 times more than flowing traffic? So don't play the environment game. I f I could use public transport at 4:30 am I would. But I can't. If I could cycle to work I would, but with all my baggage I can't. If I could walk I would, but it's 4 miles.The buffons who think they know whats best for the Cities transport have absolutely no idea. Sack the lot of them

Stu Pidd wrote:

ak7274 wrote: How stupid was this scheme? Not only ill advised but absolutely STUPID. Guess where the traffic will go?..........The ring road. You know the one.........The car park to the north of york called the 1237. You bunch of berks. Do you not realise that staionery traffic pollutes up to 10 times more than flowing traffic? So don't play the environment game. I f I could use public transport at 4:30 am I would. But I can't. If I could cycle to work I would, but with all my baggage I can't. If I could walk I would, but it's 4 miles.The buffons who think they know whats best for the Cities transport have absolutely no idea. Sack the lot of them

If you go to work at 4.30am, why are you even complaining? PS, you're excuse for not cycling is laughable. Why not just say you are a lazy nosher who be bothered to cycle?

mack wrote:
The increasingly smug arrogance of Mr Hepworth beggars belief and for him I recommend a long ride up a short pier. Motorists, like cylists should be permitted to travel efficiently and safely as both groups pay assorted taxes; one group considerably more while having considerably more done to them rather than for them. There is no motoring officer at the council to voice the concerns of this group so the playing field is far from level. Have there been sufficient accidents on the affected stretch of road to jusify the huge expense and additional costs to motor transport? Or is this part of the creation of gridlock required to bring on congestion charging? Also, as cyclists think the rules of the road are for everyone else but them to obey, will they use the new layout correctly anyway? Finally, having been given all these benefits at the expense of motorists, could there be a bit of give & take at the Clifton Green lights. While turning legitimately from Shipton Rd into Water End, it would be a lot safer for all concerned if cyclists gouing from W/E to Kingsway & Bootham would not anticipate the green light?

pedalling paul wrote:

mack wrote: The increasingly smug arrogance of Mr Hepworth beggars belief and for him I recommend a long ride up a short pier. Motorists, like cylists should be permitted to travel efficiently and safely as both groups pay assorted taxes; one group considerably more while having considerably more done to them rather than for them. There is no motoring officer at the council to voice the concerns of this group so the playing field is far from level. Have there been sufficient accidents on the affected stretch of road to jusify the huge expense and additional costs to motor transport? Or is this part of the creation of gridlock required to bring on congestion charging? Also, as cyclists think the rules of the road are for everyone else but them to obey, will they use the new layout correctly anyway? Finally, having been given all these benefits at the expense of motorists, could there be a bit of give & take at the Clifton Green lights. While turning legitimately from Shipton Rd into Water End, it would be a lot safer for all concerned if cyclists gouing from W/E to Kingsway & Bootham would not anticipate the green light?

I remember a similar furore when road space on The Mount inbound was first reallocated to include a bus lane. Now it has settled down and is working well. Cycle lobbyists comments merely reflects the advice which central Government have been handing down to Local Authorities for some years. Government LTP funding can only substantially be spent on schemes which favour walking, cycling and public transport. The Cycling England grant can only be spent on cycling. Road Tax revenue goes direct to the Chancellor and is not ringfenced for expenditure on roads. A little bit indirectly finds its way into the Highways Agency budget and is spent on motorways and trunk roads. York has none of the former and one of the latter-viz the A64 which most cyclists will never use through choice. Some Road Tax returns to Local Authorities as support grant, again not ringfenced for roads. If Road Tax was scrapped, Government would have to try and tax something equally as popular.....the mind boggles! Much of York's expenditure on local roads comes from Council Tax to which we all contribute. And many residents who cycle for short journeys around York, also have cars for longer ones.

LittleTed wrote:
They should have a single lane for cars and a double lane for cyclists. So all you lazy motorists out there....On yer bike!

GemGemGem wrote:

LittleTed wrote:
They should have a single lane for cars and a double lane for cyclists. So all you lazy motorists out there....On yer bike!

Not everyone can cycle for one reason or another.

The Vicar wrote:
Someone I work with cycles to work and he stinks of sweat.. To all of those who state "there was'nt two lanes in the first place". If this is so, why has this stupid scheme had such an impact on traffic flow??

piaggio wrote:
all this to please a bunch of bleedin hippies happy.get in the real world

TheTruthHurts wrote:

The Vicar wrote: Someone I work with cycles to work and he stinks of sweat.. To all of those who state "there was'nt two lanes in the first place". If this is so, why has this stupid scheme had such an impact on traffic flow??

Someone i work with doesnt cycle to work, parks right outside the door and he stinks of sweat too!

drs1706 wrote:
I am surprised no one has mentioned the bus stop a bit further up. Have a look next time you are stuck in the jam!

sukh wrote:
Just saw 4 lads cycling along the pavement near Clifton Bridge, completely ignoring the cycle lane and had to slow down for a pedestrian dodging the green light and avoiding the pedestrian crossing. Seems only the motorists take any notice of the law. What a waste of money this whole exercise has been

sukh wrote:
Just saw 4 lads cycling along the pavement near Clifton Bridge, completely ignoring the cycle lane and had to slow down for a pedestrian dodging the green light and avoiding the pedestrian crossing. Seems only the motorists take any notice of the law. What a waste of money this whole exercise has been

skeifr wrote:
Some comments on the general responses: Worst outbreak of testosterone poisoning I ever saw... The filter lane didn't work! It was blocked every few minutes by trucks or some numpty car driver with no road sense, sitting too far left in the right lane. The pavement at that fifteen degree or so bend was too narrow to slim down, it already had bollards on it to discourage kerb-mounting by drivers, and you can imagine what the response would have been to proposals for taking some of the garden from the houses there in order to realign. The owners would have probably wanted the half million just for that! Like it or not drivers, this is working. You were already stuck in stationary or slow-moving traffic during peak times here, you're just conveniently suffering from collective amnesia. Those two pedestrian crossings between Greencliffe Drive and the bridge are possibly justified because the existing one serves the south entrance to the Homestead, and the new one serves to feed pedestrians across to the South side pavement, off the North side cycle lane. I'd like to think that PCSO's would monitor this area, particularly if drivers show contempt for the road markings and deliberately block the cycle lanes (or lads ignore the road and ride on the pavement). We see plenty of PCSO activity along the other part of this route in order to enforce the use of bike lights, so it would seem equitable for there to be equivalent activity in order to enforce safe driving here... The bus stop solution for the cycle path is the same as in Poppleton Road opposite Windmill Rise. Problems? Common sense should avoid conflict between riders and pedestrians here and elsewhere, unless all cyclists can be dismissed as having none? There are plenty of law-abiding cyclists and drivers, and the offending few should be confronted by the Police, whatever vehicle they may be using...

skeifr wrote:
I'm sorry, I can assure you I mean you no offence, but I now have this mental picture of Terry Thomas in a dog collar. "You're an absolute shower!" Do (metaphorically) sit down. More tea, Vicar? But seriously, I commute this way five days a week, and I can assure you that there has not been some sudden onset of total gridlock here since the scheme was finished, nor was there a clear road during rush hour before the scheme. The skinny filter lane was almost always, though I grant you not invariably, blocked for all but the happy six cars who gained its dubious safety. As it only accomodated six cars it can only have resulted in a maximum of an extra six cars waiting per traffic light phase. If the flow of traffic is wrecked by those six extra cars then we're in serious trouble. I suspect there's little difference in traffic volumes since before the shceme started, and it's so long since that road was clear of contractors vehicles and traffic barriers that anyone could be forgiven for forgetting the situation before. I feel sure the planners will have recorded traffic volumes before proposing the scheme, so perhaps we may discover the truth after they have had time to re-survey the area.

AlwaySwilby wrote:
Well I like the new arrangement. That bit of road was the worst bit of my commute from the station to Clifton Moor. Now it's great....... Now we just need to get Lendle Bridge sorted for bikes and everything will be fine. I hate driving round York these days, I don't know why you all bother.

greenmonkey wrote:
Well this has certainly got you all talking about cycling! Cllr Joe Watt has a cheek to complain about council decisions 'behind closed doors'- the decision on this was debated at a public, cross party 'City Strategy EMAP' - a structure that his party (Tory) together with Labour has just scrapped!The ending of his tenure as Cycle Champion will be welcomed by most cyclists as all he has done is make public statements undermining their case. On your bike Joe

The Vicar wrote:

skeifr wrote: I'm sorry, I can assure you I mean you no offence, but I now have this mental picture of Terry Thomas in a dog collar. "You're an absolute shower!" Do (metaphorically) sit down. More tea, Vicar? But seriously, I commute this way five days a week, and I can assure you that there has not been some sudden onset of total gridlock here since the scheme was finished, nor was there a clear road during rush hour before the scheme. The skinny filter lane was almost always, though I grant you not invariably, blocked for all but the happy six cars who gained its dubious safety. As it only accomodated six cars it can only have resulted in a maximum of an extra six cars waiting per traffic light phase. If the flow of traffic is wrecked by those six extra cars then we're in serious trouble. I suspect there's little difference in traffic volumes since before the shceme started, and it's so long since that road was clear of contractors vehicles and traffic barriers that anyone could be forgiven for forgetting the situation before. I feel sure the planners will have recorded traffic volumes before proposing the scheme, so perhaps we may discover the truth after they have had time to re-survey the area.

You are very misguided if you think this scheme has not has a detrimental impact on traffic flow.. It has, and I’m afraid that’s fact! I often also drive this route at non peak times and previously on most occasions there would be a clear run up to the lights…. Not anymore…. I find it very amusing when people state the previous filter lane only had room for 6 cars. Yes if blocked on the corner, but on most occasions had room for many more when drivers were more considerate but the point everyone seems to miss is what happens when the lights change to green?? Vehicles pass much quicker with the two lanes in place allowing side by side directional through flow when speed builds from stationary…. Oh, and sorry I can assure you I mean you no offence, but I now have this mental picture of a total..... Well, I better not say

peepod wrote:

The Vicar wrote:

skeifr wrote: I'm sorry, I can assure you I mean you no offence, but I now have this mental picture of Terry Thomas in a dog collar. "You're an absolute shower!" Do (metaphorically) sit down. More tea, Vicar? But seriously, I commute this way five days a week, and I can assure you that there has not been some sudden onset of total gridlock here since the scheme was finished, nor was there a clear road during rush hour before the scheme. The skinny filter lane was almost always, though I grant you not invariably, blocked for all but the happy six cars who gained its dubious safety. As it only accomodated six cars it can only have resulted in a maximum of an extra six cars waiting per traffic light phase. If the flow of traffic is wrecked by those six extra cars then we're in serious trouble. I suspect there's little difference in traffic volumes since before the shceme started, and it's so long since that road was clear of contractors vehicles and traffic barriers that anyone could be forgiven for forgetting the situation before. I feel sure the planners will have recorded traffic volumes before proposing the scheme, so perhaps we may discover the truth after they have had time to re-survey the area.

You are very misguided if you think this scheme has not has a detrimental impact on traffic flow.. It has, and I’m afraid that’s fact! I often also drive this route at non peak times and previously on most occasions there would be a clear run up to the lights…. Not anymore…. I find it very amusing when people state the previous filter lane only had room for 6 cars. Yes if blocked on the corner, but on most occasions had room for many more when drivers were more considerate but the point everyone seems to miss is what happens when the lights change to green?? Vehicles pass much quicker with the two lanes in place allowing side by side directional through flow when speed builds from stationary…. Oh, and sorry I can assure you I mean you no offence, but I now have this mental picture of a total..... Well, I better not say

Ok, calm down people. This has obviously caused mixed reaction, with cyclists pro cycle lanes and motorists apposing these changes. A compromising solution would be to keep/improve the existing roads to ensure good traffic flow and to build cycle routes that are away from the road. There are more cyclists in York than a lot of other places in the north so what York needs are well thought out cycle routes that are completely separate from the roads. It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to devise some kind of plan; in fact my 6 year old is working on it now!

Metalex wrote:
Well, it was good watching another utterly cretinous cyclist totally ignoring the red lights at Clifton Green today. That was after I nearly ran him over when about to pass him because he was so unsteady on his bike and nearly fell into the road. Maybe he was drunk. Doesn't matter to him though, does it? He hasn't got a licence to lose and can't get points, unlike us car drivers.

If cyclists want to be treated equally, then they should follow the rules of the road! A large percentage of cyclists can't even muster a signal when turning at a junction, so how can they be expected to obey red lights and cycle in a straight line?

peepod wrote:
I think the only way to solve this problem is build a system of tunnels for cyclists. It would work in a similar way to the London Tube but with bike lanes instead of trains! Cyclists wanting to use this would have to pay, depending on what zone you’re in.

peepod wrote:
I'm not sure that a roundabout would work! The only time I have seen traffic move very freely is when the lights have been out and it's ‘a free for all'! People tend to approach the junction more cautiously. It is a known fact that traffic lights actually slow things down rather than solve problems.