Clifton Green cycle lane is scrapped

York Press: Traffic using the  junction at Clifton Green, York Traffic using the junction at Clifton Green, York

A CYCLE lane at a York junction is to be removed at a cost of £12,000 – only three years after it was put in.

City of York Council’s cabinet last night approved taking away the bike route to make way for the reintroduction of a left-hand traffic lane at the junction of Clifton Green and Water End, despite emergency services and cyclists opposing the move.

The changes to the junction, made in 2009, saw the car lane replaced with more space for cyclists.

But local residents said this led to motorists seeking alternative routes turning their streets into “rat runs”.

Council transport officers admitted the new alterations would make the layout less safe for cyclists, but said it would reduce congestion.

North Yorkshire Police, North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service and the Yorkshire Ambulance Service all said the junction should stay as it is, while cyclists gathered outside last night’s meeting at Fulford School to call for the bike lane to be retained.

The council’s Labour group pledged to bring back the car lane after winning power last year.

The cabinet chose the cheaper of two options for making a fresh set of changes to the junction, with the cost of the other possibility, including a central cycle lane, being estimated at £35,000.

In a public consultation, 106 of the 178 people who responded said the current arrangements should remain, while 56 favoured the arrangement which was approved.

Poppleton resident Peter Fay told the cabinet the extra cycling facilities had encouraged him to use his bike rather than his car, and the changes would “increase danger not just to cyclists, but to everybody”.

Cycling campaigner Paul Hepworth said the promise to bring back the car lane was made through “short-term blinkers at election time” and would not ease queues.

Meanwhile, residents of nearby Westminster Road and The Avenue renewed calls for their streets to be closed to through traffic.

Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for city strategy, said it was an “incredibly difficult” junction which would always be “overloaded” with peak-time traffic unless improvements were made to York’s outer ring road.

But he said the changes would not completely remove cycle space and its existing layout was “not necessarily safe”.

“We will keep it under review both in terms of the junction’s safety record and any impact on take-up of cycling,” he said.

Comments (111)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:20am Wed 4 Apr 12

Jazzper says...

One word...."Hooray"...!
!
One word...."Hooray"...! ! Jazzper

9:23am Wed 4 Apr 12

Theendoftheworld says...

Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie. Theendoftheworld

9:23am Wed 4 Apr 12

idlehousewife says...

Another colossal waste of money then! The road layout was altered near Aldi in Fulford last year.Where next?
Another colossal waste of money then! The road layout was altered near Aldi in Fulford last year.Where next? idlehousewife

9:24am Wed 4 Apr 12

ReginaldBiscuit says...

As a cyclist I think it's a shame but I can understand why it's been done.

£12,000 to take out. What was the original cost of putting it in? Shades of altering all the bus stops on the purple-headed people-eating ftr route.
As a cyclist I think it's a shame but I can understand why it's been done. £12,000 to take out. What was the original cost of putting it in? Shades of altering all the bus stops on the purple-headed people-eating ftr route. ReginaldBiscuit

9:28am Wed 4 Apr 12

sheps lad says...

P.P.boo hoo!
P.P.boo hoo! sheps lad

9:37am Wed 4 Apr 12

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Hallelujah.
Hallelujah. NoNewsIsGoodNews

9:39am Wed 4 Apr 12

HTC says...

This really is good news.

On the issue of cyclist safety, I have found the current layout to be far worse than before, as frustrated motorists rush to accelerate through the lights.

We need to keep York moving and in recent years "traffic calming" measures have brought our city close to gridlock.
This really is good news. On the issue of cyclist safety, I have found the current layout to be far worse than before, as frustrated motorists rush to accelerate through the lights. We need to keep York moving and in recent years "traffic calming" measures have brought our city close to gridlock. HTC

9:44am Wed 4 Apr 12

ReginaldBiscuit says...

HTC wrote:
This really is good news.

On the issue of cyclist safety, I have found the current layout to be far worse than before, as frustrated motorists rush to accelerate through the lights.

We need to keep York moving and in recent years "traffic calming" measures have brought our city close to gridlock.
I wouldn't worry about it. Fuel will be that expensive soon that no one will be going anywhere much in fossil-fuelled cars.
[quote][p][bold]HTC[/bold] wrote: This really is good news. On the issue of cyclist safety, I have found the current layout to be far worse than before, as frustrated motorists rush to accelerate through the lights. We need to keep York moving and in recent years "traffic calming" measures have brought our city close to gridlock.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't worry about it. Fuel will be that expensive soon that no one will be going anywhere much in fossil-fuelled cars. ReginaldBiscuit

9:44am Wed 4 Apr 12

pedalling paul says...

Theendoftheworld wrote:
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?
[quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.[/p][/quote]Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two? pedalling paul

9:47am Wed 4 Apr 12

BertieBrompton says...

I'm off to drive and cycle down Westminster Road and The Avenue!
I'm off to drive and cycle down Westminster Road and The Avenue! BertieBrompton

9:55am Wed 4 Apr 12

BL2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?
60% of just over 100 people is not a realistic view of the majority of the road's users!

Good riddance to the ridiculous layout!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.[/p][/quote]Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?[/p][/quote]60% of just over 100 people is not a realistic view of the majority of the road's users! Good riddance to the ridiculous layout! BL2

9:58am Wed 4 Apr 12

Yeahbutno says...

Spending money we haven't got, to change a junction to make it more dangerous, despite the majority wanting it leaving alone.

Becky Lane tip being closed next then, despite the overwhelming resistance.
Spending money we haven't got, to change a junction to make it more dangerous, despite the majority wanting it leaving alone. Becky Lane tip being closed next then, despite the overwhelming resistance. Yeahbutno

10:09am Wed 4 Apr 12

gurgles says...

...let the Q's queue and the P's ... well set 'em free from the pods...
...let the Q's queue and the P's ... well set 'em free from the pods... gurgles

10:16am Wed 4 Apr 12

bolero says...

Another Galloway folly bites the dust.
Another Galloway folly bites the dust. bolero

10:23am Wed 4 Apr 12

Pete the Brickie says...



pedalling paul says...
9:44am Wed 4 Apr 12


Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?



I won't hold my breath for the gridlock you spout about like a modern day Noah with even less supporters, you've been saying it will happen in two years for the last three to my knowledge.
[quote] pedalling paul says... 9:44am Wed 4 Apr 12 Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two? [/quote] I won't hold my breath for the gridlock you spout about like a modern day Noah with even less supporters, you've been saying it will happen in two years for the last three to my knowledge. Pete the Brickie

10:24am Wed 4 Apr 12

lindao says...

"Council transport officers admitted the new alterations would make the layout less safe for cyclists, but said it would reduce congestion."

I really cannot believe what I have just read...reduction of congestion more important than safetly of cyclists... Possibly our mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter husband, wife.....cycling.
I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. Why not put safetly first and why when we are short of money already, do the Council team decide that they just have to spend more of it on something which seems to be working perfectly fine, except probably the residents of the streets which people take short cuts through...well they are open roads are they not?....Only a matter of time before they decide they made yet another mistake, wasted our money and change it back!
"Council transport officers admitted the new alterations would make the layout less safe for cyclists, but said it would reduce congestion." I really cannot believe what I have just read...reduction of congestion more important than safetly of cyclists... Possibly our mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter husband, wife.....cycling. I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. Why not put safetly first and why when we are short of money already, do the Council team decide that they just have to spend more of it on something which seems to be working perfectly fine, except probably the residents of the streets which people take short cuts through...well they are open roads are they not?....Only a matter of time before they decide they made yet another mistake, wasted our money and change it back! lindao

10:34am Wed 4 Apr 12

YorkieUK87 says...

"Meanwhile, residents of nearby Westminster Road and The Avenue renewed calls for their streets to be closed to through traffic."

The Residents need to get a life, you knew what it was like when you moved in! Granted not as bad just live with it!
"Meanwhile, residents of nearby Westminster Road and The Avenue renewed calls for their streets to be closed to through traffic." The Residents need to get a life, you knew what it was like when you moved in! Granted not as bad just live with it! YorkieUK87

10:37am Wed 4 Apr 12

fixedfanatic says...

As a passionate cyclist & occasional car driver the removal of the cycle lane makes perfect sense to me, never understood why it was done in the first place. Cycling will always have an element of danger but I for one don't need cycle lanes when there is a perfectly good road available to me.
As a passionate cyclist & occasional car driver the removal of the cycle lane makes perfect sense to me, never understood why it was done in the first place. Cycling will always have an element of danger but I for one don't need cycle lanes when there is a perfectly good road available to me. fixedfanatic

10:38am Wed 4 Apr 12

Theendoftheworld says...

lindao - you say it is now less congested and the travel time is faster than it was before the alteration? Even PP would'nt claim that.You are clearly from another planet.
lindao - you say it is now less congested and the travel time is faster than it was before the alteration? Even PP would'nt claim that.You are clearly from another planet. Theendoftheworld

10:47am Wed 4 Apr 12

roclank2000 says...

Joy. I'll miss my regular trips down Westminster Road though. Maybe I'll keep using it, it's probably still quicker.
Joy. I'll miss my regular trips down Westminster Road though. Maybe I'll keep using it, it's probably still quicker. roclank2000

10:50am Wed 4 Apr 12

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

It provided a solution to a problem affecting local road users. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at the junction is not local. If they can't find an alternative for the non-local traffic they have to change it back.
It provided a solution to a problem affecting local road users. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users at the junction is not local. If they can't find an alternative for the non-local traffic they have to change it back. Ignatius Lumpopo

10:51am Wed 4 Apr 12

greenmonkey says...

So it will improve traffic flow, for a year or so, but then with more people choosing this route rather than the traffic choked outer ring road it will soon be just as slow, but with two lanes of standing traffic instead of one at the junction. And if Westminster Rd/ The Avenue remains open, any temporary reduction in rat running will be short lived. Achievement? Fewer bikes, more cars and more pollution -well done Labour, a great legacy for the city!
So it will improve traffic flow, for a year or so, but then with more people choosing this route rather than the traffic choked outer ring road it will soon be just as slow, but with two lanes of standing traffic instead of one at the junction. And if Westminster Rd/ The Avenue remains open, any temporary reduction in rat running will be short lived. Achievement? Fewer bikes, more cars and more pollution -well done Labour, a great legacy for the city! greenmonkey

11:10am Wed 4 Apr 12

Mr Happy says...

I qued all the way from Poppy Road School to Clifton Green last week. It was nose to tail and a crawl all the way. Must be a mile or more I'd say. A filter lane for the last 100 yards (is it even that) would have made almost no difference whatsoever. In fact the extra people that might now jump in their car, rather than cycle, will probably negate any so called benefit at all. A year down the line the queing over Clifton Bridge will be just the same as it is now. Who or what will be to blame then?
I qued all the way from Poppy Road School to Clifton Green last week. It was nose to tail and a crawl all the way. Must be a mile or more I'd say. A filter lane for the last 100 yards (is it even that) would have made almost no difference whatsoever. In fact the extra people that might now jump in their car, rather than cycle, will probably negate any so called benefit at all. A year down the line the queing over Clifton Bridge will be just the same as it is now. Who or what will be to blame then? Mr Happy

11:15am Wed 4 Apr 12

york_chap says...

Says a lot about the ardent cyclists around here - spending their evening hanging around outside a school.

Once the lane has been reinstated the cyclists will be safer - there'll be less vehicles (mine included) using exhibition square/bootham where all the cyclists actually are.
Says a lot about the ardent cyclists around here - spending their evening hanging around outside a school. Once the lane has been reinstated the cyclists will be safer - there'll be less vehicles (mine included) using exhibition square/bootham where all the cyclists actually are. york_chap

11:16am Wed 4 Apr 12

Mr Happy says...

Oh and if the residents of Westminster Road/The Avenue ever get their wish to have those roads blocked to through traffic, I hope they never, ever, have the cheek to themselves drive down any other residential street in York!
Oh and if the residents of Westminster Road/The Avenue ever get their wish to have those roads blocked to through traffic, I hope they never, ever, have the cheek to themselves drive down any other residential street in York! Mr Happy

11:30am Wed 4 Apr 12

chillout says...

Now what about the balls up theyve made with the bus stop in Piccadilly where the 8 service stops !!!!! why on earth did they move the 6 stop in Exhibition sqr right to the front so when the bus loads passengers it blocks filter lane - just put it back where it was just a few yards further up in the shelter. These are 2 tiny easy fixes to make City flow a bit better.
Now what about the balls up theyve made with the bus stop in Piccadilly where the 8 service stops !!!!! why on earth did they move the 6 stop in Exhibition sqr right to the front so when the bus loads passengers it blocks filter lane - just put it back where it was just a few yards further up in the shelter. These are 2 tiny easy fixes to make City flow a bit better. chillout

11:37am Wed 4 Apr 12

twoleftfeet says...

Traffic congestion willl not be reduced. It was just as bad before they put the cycle lane in. As ever a complete waste of time and money by the Council....
Traffic congestion willl not be reduced. It was just as bad before they put the cycle lane in. As ever a complete waste of time and money by the Council.... twoleftfeet

11:39am Wed 4 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too.

In which case you are a liar!

Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars.
[quote]I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. [/quote] In which case you are a liar! Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars. Sillybillies

11:43am Wed 4 Apr 12

rodney'sdog says...

meanwhile-massive pointless cycle lane added on Blossom street!
meanwhile-massive pointless cycle lane added on Blossom street! rodney'sdog

11:44am Wed 4 Apr 12

gurgles says...

...wheelie wars...
...wheelie wars... gurgles

12:07pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Mr Happy says...

Sillybillies wrote:
I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too.

In which case you are a liar!

Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars.
Why not do everything in favour of cars, then we can all jump off our bikes and into our cars. It will be heaven on the roads of York!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. [/quote] In which case you are a liar! Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars.[/p][/quote]Why not do everything in favour of cars, then we can all jump off our bikes and into our cars. It will be heaven on the roads of York!!!! Mr Happy

12:15pm Wed 4 Apr 12

3.8liter says...

Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms.
The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.
Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive. 3.8liter

12:18pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Stuart Jones says...

Fantastic. Can't wait to ditch my bike and get back in the car now that the traffic is going to completely disappear!
Fantastic. Can't wait to ditch my bike and get back in the car now that the traffic is going to completely disappear! Stuart Jones

12:33pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

Why not do everything in favour of cars, then we can all jump off our bikes and into our cars. It will be heaven on the roads of York!!!!

Wouldn't make one jot of discernible difference.
1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding.
2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to.
3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed.
4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams.
[quote]Why not do everything in favour of cars, then we can all jump off our bikes and into our cars. It will be heaven on the roads of York!!!![/quote] Wouldn't make one jot of discernible difference. 1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding. 2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to. 3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed. 4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams. Sillybillies

12:33pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Yeahbutno says...

Sillybillies wrote:
I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too.
In which case you are a liar! Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars.
I thought traffic lights were supposed to be synchronised, and indeed computerised to keep flowing. The Anne Reid debacle from a few years ago was supposedly her "testing" the new system.

However, its clearly obvious the system doesn't work. I have sat numerous times at the red light waiting to turn into Poppleton Rd from Water End, while the lights are green for traffic travelling on Poppy Rd itself. Many times, this traffic is completely clear, yet the lights stay green. Then the filter comes on too! All the while traffic is queuing right back down Water End. Ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. [/quote] In which case you are a liar! Let's not stop at just this junction, Fulford Road also needs putting back to what it was, and it would cost nothing to synchronise traffic lights all over York in favour of cars.[/p][/quote]I thought traffic lights were supposed to be synchronised, and indeed computerised to keep flowing. The Anne Reid debacle from a few years ago was supposedly her "testing" the new system. However, its clearly obvious the system doesn't work. I have sat numerous times at the red light waiting to turn into Poppleton Rd from Water End, while the lights are green for traffic travelling on Poppy Rd itself. Many times, this traffic is completely clear, yet the lights stay green. Then the filter comes on too! All the while traffic is queuing right back down Water End. Ridiculous. Yeahbutno

12:39pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

The Anne Reid debacle from a few years ago was supposedly her "testing" the new system.

She was using a device to switch traffic lights to green for her daughter's wedding cortège, nothing to do with synchronised lights to speed traffic flow.
[quote]The Anne Reid debacle from a few years ago was supposedly her "testing" the new system. [/quote] She was using a device to switch traffic lights to green for her daughter's wedding cortège, nothing to do with synchronised lights to speed traffic flow. Sillybillies

12:40pm Wed 4 Apr 12

yawn.. says...

lindao wrote:
"Council transport officers admitted the new alterations would make the layout less safe for cyclists, but said it would reduce congestion." I really cannot believe what I have just read...reduction of congestion more important than safetly of cyclists... Possibly our mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter husband, wife.....cycling. I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. Why not put safetly first and why when we are short of money already, do the Council team decide that they just have to spend more of it on something which seems to be working perfectly fine, except probably the residents of the streets which people take short cuts through...well they are open roads are they not?....Only a matter of time before they decide they made yet another mistake, wasted our money and change it back!
As a someone who spends 10hrs a day on York's roads I think you're typing sh1te.
[quote][p][bold]lindao[/bold] wrote: "Council transport officers admitted the new alterations would make the layout less safe for cyclists, but said it would reduce congestion." I really cannot believe what I have just read...reduction of congestion more important than safetly of cyclists... Possibly our mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter husband, wife.....cycling. I use the junction in question on a regular basis by car and found the travel time faster and road less congested...safer for cyclists too. Why not put safetly first and why when we are short of money already, do the Council team decide that they just have to spend more of it on something which seems to be working perfectly fine, except probably the residents of the streets which people take short cuts through...well they are open roads are they not?....Only a matter of time before they decide they made yet another mistake, wasted our money and change it back![/p][/quote]As a someone who spends 10hrs a day on York's roads I think you're typing sh1te. yawn..

12:40pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Thisisme says...

3.8liter wrote:
Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms.
The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.
You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs.
YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.[/p][/quote]You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs. YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!! Thisisme

12:58pm Wed 4 Apr 12

3.8liter says...

Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget.
This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC.
Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE.
Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget. This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC. Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE. 3.8liter

1:09pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Jazzper says...

fixedfanatic wrote:
As a passionate cyclist & occasional car driver the removal of the cycle lane makes perfect sense to me, never understood why it was done in the first place. Cycling will always have an element of danger but I for one don't need cycle lanes when there is a perfectly good road available to me.
This post is exactly my sentiment , well said !!
[quote][p][bold]fixedfanatic[/bold] wrote: As a passionate cyclist & occasional car driver the removal of the cycle lane makes perfect sense to me, never understood why it was done in the first place. Cycling will always have an element of danger but I for one don't need cycle lanes when there is a perfectly good road available to me.[/p][/quote]This post is exactly my sentiment , well said !! Jazzper

1:21pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Thisisme says...

3.8liter wrote:
Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget.
This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC.
Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE.
Ok you idiot! I will explain it clearly ...... The amount the taxpayer will suffer from the whole job cuts, not the £12,000. You clearly don't have a clue.
Come back when you have a sensible answer!
[quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget. This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC. Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE.[/p][/quote]Ok you idiot! I will explain it clearly ...... The amount the taxpayer will suffer from the whole job cuts, not the £12,000. You clearly don't have a clue. Come back when you have a sensible answer! Thisisme

1:26pm Wed 4 Apr 12

cynic3 says...

I cannot help thinking that somewhere in the Council's traffic department is a recent graduate with a BA in town planning and no practical experience. This person has been let loose on road design in York and hopefully the errors will now stop. The Clifton Green junction will never work until you take (say) five metres off the end of the Green. Won't hold my breath for that one!
I cannot help thinking that somewhere in the Council's traffic department is a recent graduate with a BA in town planning and no practical experience. This person has been let loose on road design in York and hopefully the errors will now stop. The Clifton Green junction will never work until you take (say) five metres off the end of the Green. Won't hold my breath for that one! cynic3

1:38pm Wed 4 Apr 12

RingoStarr says...

C'mon Paul...YOU'RE not 'rising to the bait' enough on this one!
C'mon Paul...YOU'RE not 'rising to the bait' enough on this one! RingoStarr

1:42pm Wed 4 Apr 12

3.8liter says...

Thisisme wrote:
3.8liter wrote:
Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget.
This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC.
Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE.
Ok you idiot! I will explain it clearly ...... The amount the taxpayer will suffer from the whole job cuts, not the £12,000. You clearly don't have a clue.
Come back when you have a sensible answer!
What's all this got to do with the cycle lane discussion.Keep to the subject please, and try not to make insulting remarks. i realise that for some people this might be difficult
We are having a discussion about the cycle lane, which is a £12000 matter, not Jobcuts and other personal problems you might have.
[quote][p][bold]Thisisme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Trust me, £12000 is loose change compared with the council's annual budget. This sum isn't going to make any difference to the job situation at CYC. Also before you call me an imbecile, I am fully aware of the job cuts, and the amount the tax payer will suffer from this £12000 expenditure. ie it will be NONE.[/p][/quote]Ok you idiot! I will explain it clearly ...... The amount the taxpayer will suffer from the whole job cuts, not the £12,000. You clearly don't have a clue. Come back when you have a sensible answer![/p][/quote]What's all this got to do with the cycle lane discussion.Keep to the subject please, and try not to make insulting remarks. i realise that for some people this might be difficult We are having a discussion about the cycle lane, which is a £12000 matter, not Jobcuts and other personal problems you might have. 3.8liter

1:49pm Wed 4 Apr 12

BioLogic says...

I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only.

The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again. BioLogic

1:51pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Theendoftheworld says...

Thisisme - you were the one who mentioned the £12,000 spend at this time of job losses. 3.8litre responded quite rationally then you called him an idiot and an imbecile. You need to stop being hysterical and calm down dear!
Thisisme - you were the one who mentioned the £12,000 spend at this time of job losses. 3.8litre responded quite rationally then you called him an idiot and an imbecile. You need to stop being hysterical and calm down dear! Theendoftheworld

1:57pm Wed 4 Apr 12

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

BioLogic wrote:
I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only.

The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.[/p][/quote]It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could. NoNewsIsGoodNews

2:13pm Wed 4 Apr 12

GuyWithCommonSense says...

rodney'sdog wrote:
meanwhile-massive pointless cycle lane added on Blossom street!
I grant that it wasn't urgently needed, but it's not a waste at all as there's still more than enough room for cars. That was a pointless post to be honest...
[quote][p][bold]rodney'sdog[/bold] wrote: meanwhile-massive pointless cycle lane added on Blossom street![/p][/quote]I grant that it wasn't urgently needed, but it's not a waste at all as there's still more than enough room for cars. That was a pointless post to be honest... GuyWithCommonSense

2:17pm Wed 4 Apr 12

YorkPatrol says...

twoleftfeet wrote:
Traffic congestion willl not be reduced. It was just as bad before they put the cycle lane in. As ever a complete waste of time and money by the Council....
Wrong!
[quote][p][bold]twoleftfeet[/bold] wrote: Traffic congestion willl not be reduced. It was just as bad before they put the cycle lane in. As ever a complete waste of time and money by the Council....[/p][/quote]Wrong! YorkPatrol

2:21pm Wed 4 Apr 12

YorkPatrol says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
BioLogic wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.
4 cars?? - how long were the cars... limo's prehaps??
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.[/p][/quote]It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.[/p][/quote]4 cars?? - how long were the cars... limo's prehaps?? YorkPatrol

2:27pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Mr Happy says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only.

The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.
You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.[/p][/quote]It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.[/p][/quote]You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement. Mr Happy

2:31pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Amoco Caditz says...

Comment on the Story:
York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today.

Now the humour:
All the posters from yesterdays comments
(http://www.yorkpres
s.co.uk/news/9627803
.New_bike_route_unve
iling_criticised/#co
mmentsList)

LizzieR
YUHatin
Buzz Light-year
Caecilius
Bigwood



seem to be

A) Proved Incorrect.
B) Very quite today, for some reason!
Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason! Amoco Caditz

2:31pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Dennis.Dart says...

12K to remove a bit of road paint !!!! I'll do it for 6K
no doubt CyC will contract it out P&T contractors Aka part time contactors
just pikies with jobs
12K to remove a bit of road paint !!!! I'll do it for 6K no doubt CyC will contract it out P&T contractors Aka part time contactors just pikies with jobs Dennis.Dart

2:45pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Yorkie-Clifton says...

pedalling paul wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?
Sour Grapes --pedalling paul. Yes indeed common sense has prevailed . Now I will see all the rubbish that P P has been pontificating fall flat . I hope that the Press will do a feature on this junction 6 months after the alteration . Then P P will still have some negative comments after great benefits to all . Thank You .
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.[/p][/quote]Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?[/p][/quote]Sour Grapes --pedalling paul. Yes indeed common sense has prevailed . Now I will see all the rubbish that P P has been pontificating fall flat . I hope that the Press will do a feature on this junction 6 months after the alteration . Then P P will still have some negative comments after great benefits to all . Thank You . Yorkie-Clifton

2:51pm Wed 4 Apr 12

yawn.. says...

It's just a thought York Council, but when you give us the left hand filter lane back please don't forget our filter ARROW.. oh, and please don't forget to change it to GREEN occasionally. :)
It's just a thought York Council, but when you give us the left hand filter lane back please don't forget our filter ARROW.. oh, and please don't forget to change it to GREEN occasionally. :) yawn..

2:53pm Wed 4 Apr 12

BioLogic says...

Mr Happy wrote:
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only.

The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.
You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement.
There is a small amount of logic there in that I suppose it wil slightly increase traffic flow, assuming that there is an even split of vehicles going left and right, but the difference is not going to be huge.

The perceptions of people like YorkPatrol are unfortunately very far removed from reality (bit like their debating skills) as to what the trafic flow through Clifton green was like before the changes were made. It was terrible, frequently backing up at peak times on to Clifton Bridge, I used to go through the junction every day on the way home from work, unless that is I went down Westminster Road to avoid the junction altogether.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Happy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.[/p][/quote]It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.[/p][/quote]You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement.[/p][/quote]There is a small amount of logic there in that I suppose it wil slightly increase traffic flow, assuming that there is an even split of vehicles going left and right, but the difference is not going to be huge. The perceptions of people like YorkPatrol are unfortunately very far removed from reality (bit like their debating skills) as to what the trafic flow through Clifton green was like before the changes were made. It was terrible, frequently backing up at peak times on to Clifton Bridge, I used to go through the junction every day on the way home from work, unless that is I went down Westminster Road to avoid the junction altogether. BioLogic

2:56pm Wed 4 Apr 12

yawn.. says...

..additional.. and please make sure it is once more actually WIDE enough for 2 cars again. :)
..additional.. and please make sure it is once more actually WIDE enough for 2 cars again. :) yawn..

3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12

meme says...

Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!
Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is [I'm sure I will eventually find it]. I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision! meme

3:16pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Amoco Caditz says...

‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12
Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’

Well done the voice of reason at least.
I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic.
The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies!
‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12 Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’ Well done the voice of reason at least. I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic. The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies! Amoco Caditz

3:30pm Wed 4 Apr 12

pedalling paul says...

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
Theendoftheworld wrote:
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?
Sour Grapes --pedalling paul. Yes indeed common sense has prevailed . Now I will see all the rubbish that P P has been pontificating fall flat . I hope that the Press will do a feature on this junction 6 months after the alteration . Then P P will still have some negative comments after great benefits to all . Thank You .
At last...some forward thinking. But let's make it a year rather than six months...give peak queues a fair chance to build up beyond their present extent.
As for Amoco Caditz, perhaps he/she doesn't realise that "Road tax" which is actually vehicle excise duty ie car tax, largely contributes nothing to roads. As I've said before it goes into a big pot along with all the national taxes we pay like Income tax & VAT. Some of this mix ends up with the Dept. for Transport who fund motorways & trunk roads. In York we have none of the former, and only the A64 in the latter category. Local roads are funded with Council Tax income by CoYC to which most of us contribute, regardless of how we travel. C onfident cyclists like us can manage on roads with no dedicated cycling facilities. The sea change which is needed to avoid gridlock, is to get less confident cycle owners riding more regularly, along with car sharing and more public transport usage. Priority measures for these travel choices can encourage many out of cars for short distance journeys, so more space for those who need to use a car.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie-Clifton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.[/p][/quote]Strange then that 60% of respondents to the Consultation, expressed a desire to keep the existing layout. Hardly a vocal minority....... Here's a question for all. Blinkers off and look to the future. How long will the benefits to car users last? Will peak traffic be magically "flowing" in a year or two?[/p][/quote]Sour Grapes --pedalling paul. Yes indeed common sense has prevailed . Now I will see all the rubbish that P P has been pontificating fall flat . I hope that the Press will do a feature on this junction 6 months after the alteration . Then P P will still have some negative comments after great benefits to all . Thank You .[/p][/quote]At last...some forward thinking. But let's make it a year rather than six months...give peak queues a fair chance to build up beyond their present extent. As for Amoco Caditz, perhaps he/she doesn't realise that "Road tax" which is actually vehicle excise duty ie car tax, largely contributes nothing to roads. As I've said before it goes into a big pot along with all the national taxes we pay like Income tax & VAT. Some of this mix ends up with the Dept. for Transport who fund motorways & trunk roads. In York we have none of the former, and only the A64 in the latter category. Local roads are funded with Council Tax income by CoYC to which most of us contribute, regardless of how we travel. C onfident cyclists like us can manage on roads with no dedicated cycling facilities. The sea change which is needed to avoid gridlock, is to get less confident cycle owners riding more regularly, along with car sharing and more public transport usage. Priority measures for these travel choices can encourage many out of cars for short distance journeys, so more space for those who need to use a car. pedalling paul

3:31pm Wed 4 Apr 12

BioLogic says...

Amoco Caditz wrote:
‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12
Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’

Well done the voice of reason at least.
I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic.
The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies!
PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with!
[quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: ‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12 Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’ Well done the voice of reason at least. I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic. The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies![/p][/quote]PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with! BioLogic

4:01pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Amoco Caditz says...

‘pedalling paul says... 3:30pm Wed 4 Apr 12
As for Amoco Caditz, perhaps he/she doesn't realise that "Road tax" which is actually vehicle excise duty ie car tax, largely contributes nothing to roads’

As usual there are two ends of a stick and you seem to have got the incorrect one yet again!

I have never stated that road tax was for use on roads exclusively. I merely pointed out your mistake when you stated that VED was a tax on car ownership.
It’s a tax for the Registered Keeper to pay whom may be or not be the owner for when the vehicle is used on a public road, the vehicle can be Sorned for off highway use or none use, so that’s not a tax on vehicle ownership!

Just because you have lost for now the cycle lane at water end debate by council announcement, do not attempt to win a debate that you have already lost by misquoting someone that has proved you were incorrect!

Have you been asked to step down from being the incorrect fact stating mouthpiece for the cycling club yet?
You should have been, as you have failed to cover them in glory on this and all the other issues you post on.

Do you have a valid driving licence?

Note to CTC: time for a new minister of propaganda, this one is broken, perhaps Joseph Goebbels would be a good role model?

Thereby completing the debate as we have a tenuous link to Hitler by Godwin’s Law.
‘pedalling paul says... 3:30pm Wed 4 Apr 12 As for Amoco Caditz, perhaps he/she doesn't realise that "Road tax" which is actually vehicle excise duty ie car tax, largely contributes nothing to roads’ As usual there are two ends of a stick and you seem to have got the incorrect one yet again! I have never stated that road tax was for use on roads exclusively. I merely pointed out your mistake when you stated that VED was a tax on car ownership. It’s a tax for the Registered Keeper to pay whom may be or not be the owner for when the vehicle is used on a public road, the vehicle can be Sorned for off highway use or none use, so that’s not a tax on vehicle ownership! Just because you have lost for now the cycle lane at water end debate by council announcement, do not attempt to win a debate that you have already lost by misquoting someone that has proved you were incorrect! Have you been asked to step down from being the incorrect fact stating mouthpiece for the cycling club yet? You should have been, as you have failed to cover them in glory on this and all the other issues you post on. Do you have a valid driving licence? Note to CTC: time for a new minister of propaganda, this one is broken, perhaps Joseph Goebbels would be a good role model? Thereby completing the debate as we have a tenuous link to Hitler by Godwin’s Law. Amoco Caditz

4:02pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Pete the Brickie says...

Mr Happy wrote:
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only.

The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.
It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.
You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement.
Because firstly the first eight cars can move off instead of four ehen the lights change, then when the traffic is moving cars can turn right and left at the same time allowing a smoother flow and more cars going through the green light in the same timed phase.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Happy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: I hate to say this (believe me I do) but Peddling Paul has a point here. The re-introduction of the left hand filter wil not magically improve traffic flow. The filter lane held at best 4 cars before the narrow restriction in the road width means the lane narrows to 1 car width only. The only way to dramatically improve traffic flows there is to widen the road or to introduce a gyratory system similar to that at Fishergate. Money wasted on that basis. York's Labour group gets it wrong again.[/p][/quote]It maybe only holds four cars, but when the lights are green it lets out twice as many cars with two lanes than the one lane setup ever could.[/p][/quote]You're going to have to explain that statement I think. If the traffic is single file behind the four (or whatever) cars in the filter lane, how does it let twice as many through? When cars get into the filter lane do they suddenly accelerate to 60 or 70mph or something because otherwise I can't see the logic in your statement.[/p][/quote]Because firstly the first eight cars can move off instead of four ehen the lights change, then when the traffic is moving cars can turn right and left at the same time allowing a smoother flow and more cars going through the green light in the same timed phase. Pete the Brickie

4:05pm Wed 4 Apr 12

akuma says...

Like many have said, Hooray for common sense!

I have been driving in York for about 15 years. While the junction in question has always been a busy one, especially at peak times, never have I seen it queue all the way back to the Ainsty pub as it did when the cycle lane was first introduced. It's slightly less now, but thats because people have found alternate and no doubt longer routes around this junction.

Regards to PP's suggestion about 60% of respondants, I could probably rustle up 100 of my facebook friends to sign a petition if needed be, its not exactly hard. If the numbers had been in the thousands then fair enough, but as it is, there was a small group of cycling fanatics that have nothing better to do.
Like many have said, Hooray for common sense! I have been driving in York for about 15 years. While the junction in question has always been a busy one, especially at peak times, never have I seen it queue all the way back to the Ainsty pub as it did when the cycle lane was first introduced. It's slightly less now, but thats because people have found alternate and no doubt longer routes around this junction. Regards to PP's suggestion about 60% of respondants, I could probably rustle up 100 of my facebook friends to sign a petition if needed be, its not exactly hard. If the numbers had been in the thousands then fair enough, but as it is, there was a small group of cycling fanatics that have nothing better to do. akuma

4:08pm Wed 4 Apr 12

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept.
That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept. NoNewsIsGoodNews

4:17pm Wed 4 Apr 12

YorkPatrol says...

What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History!


It didn’t work


Was a poorly thought out idea


A big waste of money


Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented!


I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous
What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History! It didn’t work Was a poorly thought out idea A big waste of money Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented! I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous YorkPatrol

4:17pm Wed 4 Apr 12

YUHatin? says...

Amoco Caditz wrote:
Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason!
Ha! Well and truly called out.

Maybe you should read what I said about my personal preference being for no cycle lanes at all?

And yes, I'm quite quite. Quiet too. See - it's not that tricky to read posts :)
[quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason![/p][/quote]Ha! Well and truly called out. Maybe you should read what I said about my personal preference being for no cycle lanes at all? And yes, I'm quite quite. Quiet too. See - it's not that tricky to read posts :) YUHatin?

4:18pm Wed 4 Apr 12

BioLogic says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept.
See my comment above!
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept.[/p][/quote]See my comment above! BioLogic

4:46pm Wed 4 Apr 12

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

BioLogic wrote:
NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept.
See my comment above!
Sorry I can't do that, I'm too busy watching Deal or no deal.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: That's about the size of it Pete, not sure why Mr Happy couldn't grasp that concept.[/p][/quote]See my comment above![/p][/quote]Sorry I can't do that, I'm too busy watching Deal or no deal. NoNewsIsGoodNews

4:54pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Caecilius says...

Amoco Caditz wrote:
Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason!
Well, I'm neither "quite" nor a "Propagandarist" , nor have I been "proved wrong". What's actually happened is that the Labour group has ignored (a) the result of a public consultation (the ONLY test of public opinion on this question), because it didn't like the outcome: I suggest that York's voters take careful note of this precedent, whereby 56 votes in favour of the result Labour wants outweigh 106 votes for the result it doesn't want; (b) the professional advice of its own officers; (c) the opinion of all three emergency services and (d) all the objective evidence that's there for any unbiased observer to see, as distinct from the unsubstantiated whinging of motorists who think that someone else, not them, should bear the consequences of their choice to get in a car and contribute to congestion. And why? Simply because the Labour group thinks it may be able to grub up a few more votes by choosing to ignore all the arguments, in favour of pandering to the whingers.
[quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason![/p][/quote]Well, I'm neither "quite" nor a "Propagandarist" [sic], nor have I been "proved wrong". What's actually happened is that the Labour group has ignored (a) the result of a public consultation (the ONLY test of public opinion on this question), because it didn't like the outcome: I suggest that York's voters take careful note of this precedent, whereby 56 votes in favour of the result Labour wants outweigh 106 votes for the result it doesn't want; (b) the professional advice of its own officers; (c) the opinion of all three emergency services and (d) all the objective evidence that's there for any unbiased observer to see, as distinct from the unsubstantiated whinging of motorists who think that someone else, not them, should bear the consequences of their choice to get in a car and contribute to congestion. And why? Simply because the Labour group thinks it may be able to grub up a few more votes by choosing to ignore all the arguments, in favour of pandering to the whingers. Caecilius

5:05pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Jazzper says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History!


It didn’t work


Was a poorly thought out idea


A big waste of money


Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented!


I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous
Good points !....isn't the man that oversaw this incredulous waste of money (Bill Wooley) about to jump ship, or has he already left with a nice fat golden hand shake ?
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History! It didn’t work Was a poorly thought out idea A big waste of money Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented! I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous[/p][/quote]Good points !....isn't the man that oversaw this incredulous waste of money (Bill Wooley) about to jump ship, or has he already left with a nice fat golden hand shake ? Jazzper

5:12pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Back and Beyond says...

Caecilius wrote:
Amoco Caditz wrote:
Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason!
Well, I'm neither "quite" nor a "Propagandarist" , nor have I been "proved wrong". What's actually happened is that the Labour group has ignored (a) the result of a public consultation (the ONLY test of public opinion on this question), because it didn't like the outcome: I suggest that York's voters take careful note of this precedent, whereby 56 votes in favour of the result Labour wants outweigh 106 votes for the result it doesn't want; (b) the professional advice of its own officers; (c) the opinion of all three emergency services and (d) all the objective evidence that's there for any unbiased observer to see, as distinct from the unsubstantiated whinging of motorists who think that someone else, not them, should bear the consequences of their choice to get in a car and contribute to congestion. And why? Simply because the Labour group thinks it may be able to grub up a few more votes by choosing to ignore all the arguments, in favour of pandering to the whingers.
Did people actually vote in a Public Consultation?
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: Comment on the Story: York Council seem to have seen sense and not seem to have been led by the cycling Propagandarists in the decision they have announced today. Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason![/p][/quote]Well, I'm neither "quite" nor a "Propagandarist" [sic], nor have I been "proved wrong". What's actually happened is that the Labour group has ignored (a) the result of a public consultation (the ONLY test of public opinion on this question), because it didn't like the outcome: I suggest that York's voters take careful note of this precedent, whereby 56 votes in favour of the result Labour wants outweigh 106 votes for the result it doesn't want; (b) the professional advice of its own officers; (c) the opinion of all three emergency services and (d) all the objective evidence that's there for any unbiased observer to see, as distinct from the unsubstantiated whinging of motorists who think that someone else, not them, should bear the consequences of their choice to get in a car and contribute to congestion. And why? Simply because the Labour group thinks it may be able to grub up a few more votes by choosing to ignore all the arguments, in favour of pandering to the whingers.[/p][/quote]Did people actually vote in a Public Consultation? Back and Beyond

5:15pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Scorpio says...

How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years - I presume it must be double figures judging by the comments from the cycling fraternity!
How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years - I presume it must be double figures judging by the comments from the cycling fraternity! Scorpio

5:38pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Paul Hepworth says...

BioLogic wrote:
Amoco Caditz wrote:
‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12
Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’

Well done the voice of reason at least.
I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic.
The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies!
PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with!
This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: ‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12 Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’ Well done the voice of reason at least. I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic. The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies![/p][/quote]PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with![/p][/quote]This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers. Paul Hepworth

5:56pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Mr Crabtree says...

Thisisme wrote:
3.8liter wrote: Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.
You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs. YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!!
Blame Alexander and his band for the 'wi-fi' - what a waste of money ? !!!
[quote][p][bold]Thisisme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.[/p][/quote]You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs. YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!![/p][/quote]Blame Alexander and his band for the 'wi-fi' - what a waste of money ? !!! Mr Crabtree

6:07pm Wed 4 Apr 12

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

Paul Hepworth wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
Amoco Caditz wrote:
‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12
Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’

Well done the voice of reason at least.
I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic.
The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies!
PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with!
This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.
Is it just me that thought that Paul Hepworth and Peddling Paul were the same person? well seeing as they have both posted under different names, I must have been wrong. Glad we cleared that one up.
[quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: ‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12 Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’ Well done the voice of reason at least. I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic. The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies![/p][/quote]PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with![/p][/quote]This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.[/p][/quote]Is it just me that thought that Paul Hepworth and Peddling Paul were the same person? well seeing as they have both posted under different names, I must have been wrong. Glad we cleared that one up. NoNewsIsGoodNews

6:08pm Wed 4 Apr 12

3.8liter says...

The Labour Council is simply honoring one of the things they promised to do in their manifesto last year. Both the FTR and the Clifton green junction were both immensly unpopular with the public.
The FTR has now gone, and now the junction is going to revert back to how it was.
Unfortunatly, the cycling minority, (and it is indeed a minority at all times of the day in this area), and the Fishergate Green types, won't take 'no' for an answer, and have had a year to come up with all sorts of doctored figures which now suggest that we have changed our minds and that we don't want any changes after all!
Fortunatly their case hase no foundation and now they arn't happy. This is despite the fact that the majority of the original crackpot scheme will remain intact. It's only the last 20 yards of road and the Clifton Green lights which will revert. The £100,000 of cycle track from the dogs home will remain. So surely a few cyclists can negotiate the last 20 yards without falling off!
The Labour Council is simply honoring one of the things they promised to do in their manifesto last year. Both the FTR and the Clifton green junction were both immensly unpopular with the public. The FTR has now gone, and now the junction is going to revert back to how it was. Unfortunatly, the cycling minority, (and it is indeed a minority at all times of the day in this area), and the Fishergate Green types, won't take 'no' for an answer, and have had a year to come up with all sorts of doctored figures which now suggest that we have changed our minds and that we don't want any changes after all! Fortunatly their case hase no foundation and now they arn't happy. This is despite the fact that the majority of the original crackpot scheme will remain intact. It's only the last 20 yards of road and the Clifton Green lights which will revert. The £100,000 of cycle track from the dogs home will remain. So surely a few cyclists can negotiate the last 20 yards without falling off! 3.8liter

7:12pm Wed 4 Apr 12

pedalling paul says...

NoNewsIsGoodNews wrote:
Paul Hepworth wrote:
BioLogic wrote:
Amoco Caditz wrote:
‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12
Is there no pleasing cyclists?
I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should!
I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it!
Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that.
it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’

Well done the voice of reason at least.
I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic.
The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies!
PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with!
This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.
Is it just me that thought that Paul Hepworth and Peddling Paul were the same person? well seeing as they have both posted under different names, I must have been wrong. Glad we cleared that one up.
Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.
[quote][p][bold]NoNewsIsGoodNews[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Hepworth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Amoco Caditz[/bold] wrote: ‘meme says... 3:06pm Wed 4 Apr 12 Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!’ Well done the voice of reason at least. I think there may well be a vacancy open as spokesperson for the York cyclists club or whatever it is that Peddling Paul purports to speak for, as you have just shown that you are thinking practically and sensibly using reasoned logic. The membership of the York Cyclist thingy club please take note, someone that we will not all ridicule and can make a logical statement on your behalf that may well win you friends rather than enemies![/p][/quote]PP is the press officer for the CTC (Cyclist's Touring Club). However the CTC has been heavily criticised recently for focusing to much on it's commercial interestes and not enough on cyclists and the issues that they really care about. I think if you asked most people that regard themselves as cyclists there are other issues far more pressing than Clifton Green they would like to see dealt with![/p][/quote]This is Paul Hepworth, the Press Officer for CTC North Yorkshire. My doppleganger PP seems to be causing you all some confusion once again. My own views tend to align with those of Caecilius. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.[/p][/quote]Is it just me that thought that Paul Hepworth and Peddling Paul were the same person? well seeing as they have both posted under different names, I must have been wrong. Glad we cleared that one up.[/p][/quote]Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you. pedalling paul

7:13pm Wed 4 Apr 12

far2bizzy says...

meme wrote:
Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is . I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision!
I was more or less agreeing with you ‘til I got to “Roads were designed for cars” – really? – is that why the Romans built so many of them?
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: Is there no pleasing cyclists? I cycle and am happy to have the cycle lanes we have. I'm happy there is an orbital route; wherever that is [I'm sure I will eventually find it]. I'm happy we have a Sustrans track and I'm happy to have had numerous junctions altered, a ramp into the station and free cycle shelters built for me at work as I dont pay road tax and I am a minority road user but get a far higher proportion spent on my road use than I should! I am capable of negotiating a road without a cycle route but am glad some are there....,So, why oh why, do we constantly moan about not getting what we want without our paying for it! Roads were designed for cars, not cyclists and we should be grateful that there are special routes built for us which are not used by cars and leave it at that. it makes me sick to hear the vociferous cycle lobby constantly moan about our vulnerability. It makes us look stupid,greedy and childish. We choose to cycle, so grow up and live with your decision![/p][/quote]I was more or less agreeing with you ‘til I got to “Roads were designed for cars” – really? – is that why the Romans built so many of them? far2bizzy

7:16pm Wed 4 Apr 12

dudbertman says...

Percentages always distort the true picture. 178 people responded. I wonder how many have queued up for ever at this naff junction. Should they not have been consulted. Never saw a consultation notice at this junction!! Common sense has prevailed and although not perfect a sight better than at present.
Percentages always distort the true picture. 178 people responded. I wonder how many have queued up for ever at this naff junction. Should they not have been consulted. Never saw a consultation notice at this junction!! Common sense has prevailed and although not perfect a sight better than at present. dudbertman

8:16pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.

He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues.
[quote]Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.[/quote] He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues. Sillybillies

8:21pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.

I don't believe this for one moment, and even if true the truthfulness of the figures obtained. We need a wholly independent survey of cycle use in York, so many lies have been told to inflate the figures so as to obtain government grants. As I keep saying, there is no more cycle use in York than in any town/city of comparable size.
[quote]. As for claims of the odd bike passing over Clifton Bridge, there are subsurface data counters in the cycle lanes which are recording the actual usage. I'm sure that Councillors will accept whatever recorded details are passed to them by Officers.[/quote] I don't believe this for one moment, and even if true the truthfulness of the figures obtained. We need a wholly independent survey of cycle use in York, so many lies have been told to inflate the figures so as to obtain government grants. As I keep saying, there is no more cycle use in York than in any town/city of comparable size. Sillybillies

8:22pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Yorkie-Clifton says...

Sillybillies wrote:
Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.

He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues.
P P aka Hepworth etc etc . This person seems to have mental problems -- Split personality ?? Can anyone take him seriously after these comments ??????
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.[/quote] He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues.[/p][/quote]P P aka Hepworth etc etc . This person seems to have mental problems -- Split personality ?? Can anyone take him seriously after these comments ?????? Yorkie-Clifton

8:44pm Wed 4 Apr 12

phonemad says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History!


It didn’t work


Was a poorly thought out idea


A big waste of money


Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented!


I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous
"Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented!"

Exactly!
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: What’s the point of this debate?? The cycle lane is soon to be History! It didn’t work Was a poorly thought out idea A big waste of money Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented! I’m all for biking but this was never a viable solution… and as for dedicating a public footpath for the odd bike over Clifton Bridge was absolutely ridiculous[/p][/quote]"Increased congestion – peak time weren’t the issue, the cycle lane caused traffic to back up at all hours of the day and it was never like this before it was implemented!" Exactly! phonemad

8:51pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Blossom_Racer says...

If Anne Reid was using a device to control traffic lights for her daughters wedding then we need to ensure she is no longer part of the York council scene ever again.
If Anne Reid was using a device to control traffic lights for her daughters wedding then we need to ensure she is no longer part of the York council scene ever again. Blossom_Racer

8:54pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Back and Beyond says...

Yorkie-Clifton wrote:
Sillybillies wrote:
Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.

He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues.
P P aka Hepworth etc etc . This person seems to have mental problems -- Split personality ?? Can anyone take him seriously after these comments ??????
He's even notorious on the cycling forums...
[quote][p][bold]Yorkie-Clifton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]Drat and double drat......my doppleganger has crept out of the woodwork at long last! Never mind, I'll still be around to entertain and amuse you.[/quote] He also has another one who is a guide on an open top tour bus, one of those which crawls along like a rolling road block causing untold pollution. Hepworth is nothing but a hypocrite when it comes to green issues.[/p][/quote]P P aka Hepworth etc etc . This person seems to have mental problems -- Split personality ?? Can anyone take him seriously after these comments ??????[/p][/quote]He's even notorious on the cycling forums... Back and Beyond

9:55pm Wed 4 Apr 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Amoco Caditz wrote:
Now the humour:
All the posters from yesterdays comments
(http://www.yorkpres

s.co.uk/news/9627803

.New_bike_route_unve

iling_criticised/#co

mmentsList)

LizzieR
YUHatin
Buzz Light-year
Caecilius
Bigwood
seem to be
A) Proved Incorrect.
B) Very quite today, for some reason

I don't think you understood my post yesterday.
If you did you would know
A) What I said was correct
B) Apart from working a very long and busy day, I'm also quiet for the very reason I said before. I'm sick of the words Clifton and Green and I'm sick of animosity and the politics of cycling which as I said is a bunch of pish.

Regardless of anything any council have implemented and regardless of anything people have moaned about, I ride my bike and I couldn't give a monkeys what pedaling plonker or you or anyone says about it.
I ride it to get from where I am to where I want to go.

I only hope that this change gets made quietly and quickly before the sky falls in and we can all just get on with the more interesting things in life.
[quote]Amoco Caditz wrote: Now the humour: All the posters from yesterdays comments (http://www.yorkpres s.co.uk/news/9627803 .New_bike_route_unve iling_criticised/#co mmentsList) LizzieR YUHatin Buzz Light-year Caecilius Bigwood seem to be A) Proved Incorrect. B) Very quite today, for some reason[/quote] I don't think you understood my post yesterday. If you did you would know A) What I said was correct B) Apart from working a very long and busy day, I'm also quiet for the very reason I said before. I'm sick of the words Clifton and Green and I'm sick of animosity and the politics of cycling which as I said is a bunch of pish. Regardless of anything any council have implemented and regardless of anything people have moaned about, I ride my bike and I couldn't give a monkeys what pedaling plonker or you or anyone says about it. I ride it to get from where I am to where I want to go. I only hope that this change gets made quietly and quickly before the sky falls in and we can all just get on with the more interesting things in life. Buzz Light-year

7:37am Thu 5 Apr 12

mortandindi says...

It would be cheaper just to ban all cyclists from the roads, stick them on the pavements with the pedestrians as a lot of them use this already.
It would be cheaper just to ban all cyclists from the roads, stick them on the pavements with the pedestrians as a lot of them use this already. mortandindi

7:40am Thu 5 Apr 12

powerwatt says...

Mr Crabtree wrote:
Thisisme wrote:
3.8liter wrote: Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.
You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs. YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!!
Blame Alexander and his band for the 'wi-fi' - what a waste of money ? !!!
From a £200 million budget him borrowing an extra £20 million for projects he doesn't even know about will cause job losses.
Spending over £300k on the Clifton Green Junction is a lot, but hasn't caused any job losses. The £12k would not impact on any job losses, as it wouldn't be coming from the same expenditure.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Crabtree[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thisisme[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]3.8liter[/bold] wrote: Some people moan on about the cost of this operation, but £12000 is hardly a lot of money to rectify a mistake which should never have happened in the first place. It's almost loose change in Council terms. The high number of comments in these pages in favour of reverting the road back to it's former state are a much better indication of what the general public wants, rather than some survey, which, despite being maniplated by the cycling minority, and Fishergate green types, still proved rather inconclusive.[/p][/quote]You imbecile! £12,000 is a lot of money when you work for the Council and you are going to be made redundant. All because the city centre is getting free wifi at a cost that would keep the 'real' workers in jobs. YOU DO NOT REALISE THE EXTENT OF THE JOB CUTS AND HOW MUCH YOU THE TAX PAYER WILL SUFFER!!!!![/p][/quote]Blame Alexander and his band for the 'wi-fi' - what a waste of money ? !!![/p][/quote]From a £200 million budget him borrowing an extra £20 million for projects he doesn't even know about will cause job losses. Spending over £300k on the Clifton Green Junction is a lot, but hasn't caused any job losses. The £12k would not impact on any job losses, as it wouldn't be coming from the same expenditure. powerwatt

1:31pm Thu 5 Apr 12

plaggy tez says...

If paul hepworth and peddaling paul are not the same person,Why oh Why have they both got the same IP adress?
If paul hepworth and peddaling paul are not the same person,Why oh Why have they both got the same IP adress? plaggy tez

2:09pm Thu 5 Apr 12

Scorpio says...

Can anybody answer this?
How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years - I presume it must be double figures judging by the comments from the cycling fraternity!
Can anybody answer this? How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years - I presume it must be double figures judging by the comments from the cycling fraternity! Scorpio

2:12pm Thu 5 Apr 12

plaggy tez says...

Maybe PP should be a single statistic?
Maybe PP should be a single statistic? plaggy tez

2:27pm Thu 5 Apr 12

yorkshirelad says...

This sort of thing is why we languish behind other European countries is having proper 21st century cycle networks. York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow.

Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections.

What is really important to realise is that if you keep congested threatening junctions (especially with squeezed lanes where it matters most), you deter people from cycling....the rest of the network becomes a white elephant.

People who choose to..or have to... use cars will be the ultimate losers in this.These people are stuck in congestion now and this will continue to get worse if we don't invest in the alternatives.

Ultimately a shameful day for local politics and funded by councuil tax payers.

With the new set up, the lights will be tweaked for a bit (get ready for congestion in the other directions) to give the impression of making things much better temporarily.

But we are not daft and only a fool believes that putting people off cycling to work , or school, will make congestion better.
This sort of thing is why we languish behind other European countries is having proper 21st century cycle networks. York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow. Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections. What is really important to realise is that if you keep congested threatening junctions (especially with squeezed lanes where it matters most), you deter people from cycling....the rest of the network becomes a white elephant. People who choose to..or have to... use cars will be the ultimate losers in this.These people are stuck in congestion now and this will continue to get worse if we don't invest in the alternatives. Ultimately a shameful day for local politics and funded by councuil tax payers. With the new set up, the lights will be tweaked for a bit (get ready for congestion in the other directions) to give the impression of making things much better temporarily. But we are not daft and only a fool believes that putting people off cycling to work , or school, will make congestion better. yorkshirelad

2:34pm Thu 5 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow.

Meanwhile in the real York there are so few cyclists nowadays it won't make a blind bit of difference. I repeat -

1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding.

2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to.

3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed.

4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams.
[quote]York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow. [/quote] Meanwhile in the real York there are so few cyclists nowadays it won't make a blind bit of difference. I repeat - 1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding. 2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to. 3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed. 4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams. Sillybillies

3:37pm Thu 5 Apr 12

YorkshireYeti says...

At the risk of a huge flame war, I think there is flawed reasoning here.

I used to live on Rosebery Terrace, back in the late 80's/early 90's. To get out of that area you either go back in to town or out along Water End. I can remember, with a complete lack of fondness, trying to turn right on to the bridge from Leeman Road at peak times. I can also remember the filter lane to turn left (my route when I shopped at Tesco) and the ability to use this lane at peak times was always constrained. As soon as you have a line of cars waiting to turn right or go across to Kingsway that block the beginning of the filter, you're stuck. Which was fine until they put up a metal post stopping anyone from driving over the kerb on the sharp corner. I had more road rage from fools who would either block the filter lane or couldn't be bothered to pull forward 6 inches to open the gap up. I don't see how reinstating the filter lane will not cause this to happen again.

The argument about twice the amount of traffic flowing due to the filter lane can only be partly true. If it is true that there has been an increase in the amount of traffic on The Avenue, that would suggest that the majority of cars are wanting to turn right at Clifton Green, rather than left up the A19. Simple logic would then suggest that adding a filter lane for left hand turners is not going to benefit the majority of cars using that junction, and the rat run will continue - it was one I used to use 20 years ago anyway!

This is not a new issue and the re-introduction of the filter lane, while welcome for those turning left, is not going to solve the whole problem. Dualling the outer ring road would be the best help, as that would encourage less people to use the inner city roads as cut throughs.
At the risk of a huge flame war, I think there is flawed reasoning here. I used to live on Rosebery Terrace, back in the late 80's/early 90's. To get out of that area you either go back in to town or out along Water End. I can remember, with a complete lack of fondness, trying to turn right on to the bridge from Leeman Road at peak times. I can also remember the filter lane to turn left (my route when I shopped at Tesco) and the ability to use this lane at peak times was always constrained. As soon as you have a line of cars waiting to turn right or go across to Kingsway that block the beginning of the filter, you're stuck. Which was fine until they put up a metal post stopping anyone from driving over the kerb on the sharp corner. I had more road rage from fools who would either block the filter lane or couldn't be bothered to pull forward 6 inches to open the gap up. I don't see how reinstating the filter lane will not cause this to happen again. The argument about twice the amount of traffic flowing due to the filter lane can only be partly true. If it is true that there has been an increase in the amount of traffic on The Avenue, that would suggest that the majority of cars are wanting to turn right at Clifton Green, rather than left up the A19. Simple logic would then suggest that adding a filter lane for left hand turners is not going to benefit the majority of cars using that junction, and the rat run will continue - it was one I used to use 20 years ago anyway! This is not a new issue and the re-introduction of the filter lane, while welcome for those turning left, is not going to solve the whole problem. Dualling the outer ring road would be the best help, as that would encourage less people to use the inner city roads as cut throughs. YorkshireYeti

4:00am Fri 6 Apr 12

Magicman! says...

Theendoftheworld wrote:
Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.
Vocal Minority... VOCAL MINORITY??!
If anything, the motorists who seem to value clogging up this city as opposed to surrendering their cars for just one day to bring a better good for everybody else has been more vocal than anybody else - well, that and the Westminster avenue residents who are thick enough to move into houses on a through road and then complain that cars are using their street as a through road!

What on earth was the point in having a public consultation if the council are just going to do what they bloody well want to do?
I'm off now to build a huge tower of doom in my back garden - 100ft high with gun turrets and floodlights round the edge. None of my neighbours wanted it but I'm going to build it anyway, let's see how far I get before some injunction comes along!

Water End's traffic problems were NOT made worse by removing the left turn lane that was only used by half a dozen vehicles anyway, as the council etimed the lights to allowed those vehicles through on the 'common' green light anyway - a combined increase in car ownership plus more people fed up with the A1237 and trying to find alternative routes led to traffic congestion. Removing the cycle lane will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion here, I can assure you of that... and in a few months' time when the press put in an article that the changes have made no difference I will be here to gloat my having told you so!
[quote][p][bold]Theendoftheworld[/bold] wrote: Thank God common sense has prevailed and the vocal minority did not sway the decision. To say that the alteration did not exacerbate queues is simply a lie.[/p][/quote]Vocal Minority... VOCAL MINORITY??! If anything, the motorists who seem to value clogging up this city as opposed to surrendering their cars for just one day to bring a better good for everybody else has been more vocal than anybody else - well, that and the Westminster avenue residents who are thick enough to move into houses on a through road and then complain that cars are using their street as a through road! What on earth was the point in having a public consultation if the council are just going to do what they bloody well want to do? I'm off now to build a huge tower of doom in my back garden - 100ft high with gun turrets and floodlights round the edge. None of my neighbours wanted it but I'm going to build it anyway, let's see how far I get before some injunction comes along! Water End's traffic problems were NOT made worse by removing the left turn lane that was only used by half a dozen vehicles anyway, as the council etimed the lights to allowed those vehicles through on the 'common' green light anyway - a combined increase in car ownership plus more people fed up with the A1237 and trying to find alternative routes led to traffic congestion. Removing the cycle lane will do absolutely nothing to ease congestion here, I can assure you of that... and in a few months' time when the press put in an article that the changes have made no difference I will be here to gloat my having told you so! Magicman!

10:18am Fri 6 Apr 12

gurgles says...

...gosh lots of heat here, time too reinvent me wheels and try out those square thingies some one came up with years back...
...gosh lots of heat here, time too reinvent me wheels and try out those square thingies some one came up with years back... gurgles

10:01pm Fri 6 Apr 12

greenmonkey says...

At least yorkshirelad YorkshireYeti and Magicman bring some sense to this debate!
"Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections" - well that of a certain ex Labour leader at least. Sad thing is that our chances of seriously providing a safe alternative to the car are going to suffer, as does the credibility oof other measures that we now have government funding to implement in the 'Northern Quadrant' of the city. If Labour cant bottle tackling opposition to this, how do they expect to introduce 20mph limits across the whole city as was also in their manifesto, and shortly to be rolled out? We need a bit more vision about how other European cities such as Copenhagen have turned things around. The age of cheap fuel is oover and if York wants to have an economic advantage over other cities we need to get sustainable transport systems in place fast. Theres no money left for tram systems even if we wanted them so we have to make walking cycling and public transport attractive safe cheap and convenient.
At least yorkshirelad YorkshireYeti and Magicman bring some sense to this debate! "Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections" - well that of a certain ex Labour leader at least. Sad thing is that our chances of seriously providing a safe alternative to the car are going to suffer, as does the credibility oof other measures that we now have government funding to implement in the 'Northern Quadrant' of the city. If Labour cant bottle tackling opposition to this, how do they expect to introduce 20mph limits across the whole city as was also in their manifesto, and shortly to be rolled out? We need a bit more vision about how other European cities such as Copenhagen have turned things around. The age of cheap fuel is oover and if York wants to have an economic advantage over other cities we need to get sustainable transport systems in place fast. Theres no money left for tram systems even if we wanted them so we have to make walking cycling and public transport attractive safe cheap and convenient. greenmonkey

10:14pm Fri 6 Apr 12

Yorkie-Clifton says...

greenmonkey wrote:
At least yorkshirelad YorkshireYeti and Magicman bring some sense to this debate!
"Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections" - well that of a certain ex Labour leader at least. Sad thing is that our chances of seriously providing a safe alternative to the car are going to suffer, as does the credibility oof other measures that we now have government funding to implement in the 'Northern Quadrant' of the city. If Labour cant bottle tackling opposition to this, how do they expect to introduce 20mph limits across the whole city as was also in their manifesto, and shortly to be rolled out? We need a bit more vision about how other European cities such as Copenhagen have turned things around. The age of cheap fuel is oover and if York wants to have an economic advantage over other cities we need to get sustainable transport systems in place fast. Theres no money left for tram systems even if we wanted them so we have to make walking cycling and public transport attractive safe cheap and convenient.
So -- are you saying that only Yorkshire Yeti and your other colleague Migicman are the only people along with yourself Councillor who has common sense ? As you are all members of the Green Party you exceed yourself .Maybe the same person . hahahaah . More sour grapes methinks .
You are so desperate .
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: At least yorkshirelad YorkshireYeti and Magicman bring some sense to this debate! "Most intelligent people can see that this was really about politics and the last council elections" - well that of a certain ex Labour leader at least. Sad thing is that our chances of seriously providing a safe alternative to the car are going to suffer, as does the credibility oof other measures that we now have government funding to implement in the 'Northern Quadrant' of the city. If Labour cant bottle tackling opposition to this, how do they expect to introduce 20mph limits across the whole city as was also in their manifesto, and shortly to be rolled out? We need a bit more vision about how other European cities such as Copenhagen have turned things around. The age of cheap fuel is oover and if York wants to have an economic advantage over other cities we need to get sustainable transport systems in place fast. Theres no money left for tram systems even if we wanted them so we have to make walking cycling and public transport attractive safe cheap and convenient.[/p][/quote]So -- are you saying that only Yorkshire Yeti and your other colleague Migicman are the only people along with yourself Councillor who has common sense ? As you are all members of the Green Party you exceed yourself .Maybe the same person . hahahaah . More sour grapes methinks . You are so desperate . Yorkie-Clifton

10:28pm Fri 6 Apr 12

Mullarkian says...

Make sure they put back the left filter into Salisbury Road as well!
Make sure they put back the left filter into Salisbury Road as well! Mullarkian

1:06am Sat 7 Apr 12

Magicman! says...

There is a left filter into salisbury road.

For the record, I am not a member of the Green Party. For a start I believe, having looked at the evidence, that Global Warming being caused by human activities is all hocum and completely made up. As this is a key part of the Green Party, I cannot agree with it and so am not a member. I am simply a person who mainly cycles round york (but also uses cars and public transport) and feels the city's cycling provision is rubbish. painting a line down Huntington Road doesn't make it a cycle lane, all it does is make motorists drive closer to the cyclist thus creating more of a hazard (especially as the one mentioned is as narrow as 60cm in places as opposed to the DfT's guidelines stating cycle lanes ideally be 2m (200cm) wide with 1.6m being acceptable), and then you combine that with the utterly atrocious attitude of a significant number of motorists towards cyclists - and it makes York quite a risky place to cycle around in. I'm by no means an amateur cyclist, as I've cycled from York to Middlesbrough twice via Bilsdale (the 'yorkshire tt'), countless times to hull, twice to manchester via emley moor, and to blackburn via ilkley, to bridlington twice straight along the A166, and to scarborough twice. And once I get out of York, drivers seem to give me more room when overtaking and generally are more courteous. Even Manchester feels safer to cycle in than York!! And the council removing the most crucial part of the Water End cycle lane simply smacks to me of small town thinking by politicians who just want to be liked rather than making a sensible decision and not wasting money reversing a decision. The money could easily be used on other things such as fixing Tranby Avenue in Osbaldwick, filling a few big pot holes, or maybe even lowering a speed hump that you catch the underside of your car on everytime you go over it. Instead the council is prepared to waste money on a few bits of paint all to shut up a few car drivers who can't decide for just one day in a week to use a different form of transport (if 50 people did that there'd be at least 40 cars less on Water End at peak time, as most vehicles there are single occupancy) - instead every motorist sits in their car saying "these bloody cyclists are making my journey to home longer" rather than thinking "what can I do about this to make my journey quicker and maybe speed up other peoples' journeys too?"... oh but wait, that's everybody else's responsibility isn't it??
There is a left filter into salisbury road. For the record, I am not a member of the Green Party. For a start I believe, having looked at the evidence, that Global Warming being caused by human activities is all hocum and completely made up. As this is a key part of the Green Party, I cannot agree with it and so am not a member. I am simply a person who mainly cycles round york (but also uses cars and public transport) and feels the city's cycling provision is rubbish. painting a line down Huntington Road doesn't make it a cycle lane, all it does is make motorists drive closer to the cyclist thus creating more of a hazard (especially as the one mentioned is as narrow as 60cm in places as opposed to the DfT's guidelines stating cycle lanes ideally be 2m (200cm) wide with 1.6m being acceptable), and then you combine that with the utterly atrocious attitude of a significant number of motorists towards cyclists - and it makes York quite a risky place to cycle around in. I'm by no means an amateur cyclist, as I've cycled from York to Middlesbrough twice via Bilsdale (the 'yorkshire tt'), countless times to hull, twice to manchester via emley moor, and to blackburn via ilkley, to bridlington twice straight along the A166, and to scarborough twice. And once I get out of York, drivers seem to give me more room when overtaking and generally are more courteous. Even Manchester feels safer to cycle in than York!! And the council removing the most crucial part of the Water End cycle lane simply smacks to me of small town thinking by politicians who just want to be liked rather than making a sensible decision and not wasting money reversing a decision. The money could easily be used on other things such as fixing Tranby Avenue in Osbaldwick, filling a few big pot holes, or maybe even lowering a speed hump that you catch the underside of your car on everytime you go over it. Instead the council is prepared to waste money on a few bits of paint all to shut up a few car drivers who can't decide for just one day in a week to use a different form of transport (if 50 people did that there'd be at least 40 cars less on Water End at peak time, as most vehicles there are single occupancy) - instead every motorist sits in their car saying "these bloody cyclists are making my journey to home longer" rather than thinking "what can I do about this to make my journey quicker and maybe speed up other peoples' journeys too?"... oh but wait, that's everybody else's responsibility isn't it?? Magicman!

10:16am Sat 7 Apr 12

Mr Happy says...

Great post Magicman! As you say above, a year from now the problems at this junction will be no better than they are now. Who will be to blame once the cycle lane has gone. The vitriol towards cyclists is very real and quite evident from the posts on this site and the letters sent to "The Press". But if all those cyclists were instead another car (all single occupancy more than likely) just think how much worse the congestion in York would be. Sadly many people seem to struggle to see that.
Great post Magicman! As you say above, a year from now the problems at this junction will be no better than they are now. Who will be to blame once the cycle lane has gone. The vitriol towards cyclists is very real and quite evident from the posts on this site and the letters sent to "The Press". But if all those cyclists were instead another car (all single occupancy more than likely) just think how much worse the congestion in York would be. Sadly many people seem to struggle to see that. Mr Happy

12:02pm Sat 7 Apr 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Sillybillies wrote:
York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow.
Meanwhile in the real York there are so few cyclists nowadays it won't make a blind bit of difference. I repeat - 1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding. 2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to. 3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed. 4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams.
You stubbornly insist on having it backwards over and again.

Cycling provision has been implemented in York to encourage and increase numbers not to cater for an existing minority. You just make yourself look foolish and prejudiced.

I have a car I could jump into but I'll stick to my bike as I don't want to be late for work.
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: [quote]York will pay the ultimate price - give people no alternatives and they will turn to their cars. Congestion will ultimately grow. [/quote] Meanwhile in the real York there are so few cyclists nowadays it won't make a blind bit of difference. I repeat - 1. The idea of York being a cycling city is just not true, and a lie to get undeserved government funding. 2. Yes, there are some pedal cyclists in York, but no more than in any other town/city of our size. There are no longer hundreds of cyclists coming out of Rowntrees, Terrys and the Carriage Works, and this is what the lie of the "cycling city" harks back to. 3. Many have remarked on how few cyclists have been used actually using the Clifton Green junction. Traffic schemes should be based on the reality of wholly independent surveys, not wild claims by pressure groups and the cycling obsessed. 4. How many cyclists actually have cars to jump into? I doubt if it's number likely to cause traffic jams.[/p][/quote]You stubbornly insist on having it backwards over and again. Cycling provision has been implemented in York to encourage and increase numbers not to cater for an existing minority. You just make yourself look foolish and prejudiced. I have a car I could jump into but I'll stick to my bike as I don't want to be late for work. Buzz Light-year

4:03pm Sat 7 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

Cycling provision has been implemented in York to encourage and increase numbers not to cater for an existing minority. You just make yourself look foolish and prejudiced.

But a hell of a lot appear to agree with me, even some of the more intelligent cyclists.
[quote]Cycling provision has been implemented in York to encourage and increase numbers not to cater for an existing minority. You just make yourself look foolish and prejudiced.[/quote] But a hell of a lot appear to agree with me, even some of the more intelligent cyclists. Sillybillies

12:21pm Sun 8 Apr 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Agree with you on what point?
Agree with you on what point? Buzz Light-year

2:15pm Sun 8 Apr 12

Sillybillies says...

Agree with you on what point?

No point discussing it with one of the least intelligent ones!
[quote]Agree with you on what point?[/quote] No point discussing it with one of the least intelligent ones! Sillybillies

4:04pm Sun 8 Apr 12

Buzz Light-year says...

Really? You can't even explain yourself?
Just insults? Poor show. Says a lot.

By "least intelligent" do you mean "doesn't agree"?
Really? You can't even explain yourself? Just insults? Poor show. Says a lot. By "least intelligent" do you mean "doesn't agree"? Buzz Light-year

11:25am Tue 10 Apr 12

again says...

Magicman! wrote:
There is a left filter into salisbury road.

For the record, I am not a member of the Green Party. For a start I believe, having looked at the evidence, that Global Warming being caused by human activities is all hocum and completely made up. As this is a key part of the Green Party, I cannot agree with it and so am not a member. I am simply a person who mainly cycles round york (but also uses cars and public transport) and feels the city's cycling provision is rubbish. painting a line down Huntington Road doesn't make it a cycle lane, all it does is make motorists drive closer to the cyclist thus creating more of a hazard (especially as the one mentioned is as narrow as 60cm in places as opposed to the DfT's guidelines stating cycle lanes ideally be 2m (200cm) wide with 1.6m being acceptable), and then you combine that with the utterly atrocious attitude of a significant number of motorists towards cyclists - and it makes York quite a risky place to cycle around in. I'm by no means an amateur cyclist, as I've cycled from York to Middlesbrough twice via Bilsdale (the 'yorkshire tt'), countless times to hull, twice to manchester via emley moor, and to blackburn via ilkley, to bridlington twice straight along the A166, and to scarborough twice. And once I get out of York, drivers seem to give me more room when overtaking and generally are more courteous. Even Manchester feels safer to cycle in than York!! And the council removing the most crucial part of the Water End cycle lane simply smacks to me of small town thinking by politicians who just want to be liked rather than making a sensible decision and not wasting money reversing a decision. The money could easily be used on other things such as fixing Tranby Avenue in Osbaldwick, filling a few big pot holes, or maybe even lowering a speed hump that you catch the underside of your car on everytime you go over it. Instead the council is prepared to waste money on a few bits of paint all to shut up a few car drivers who can't decide for just one day in a week to use a different form of transport (if 50 people did that there'd be at least 40 cars less on Water End at peak time, as most vehicles there are single occupancy) - instead every motorist sits in their car saying "these bloody cyclists are making my journey to home longer" rather than thinking "what can I do about this to make my journey quicker and maybe speed up other peoples' journeys too?"... oh but wait, that's everybody else's responsibility isn't it??
Excellent comment. Unfortunately I do not think the YP plays a constructive part in improving the attitude of a very small but vocal number of selfish motorists in this matter. If cyclists decline in York then cars will increase, and the selfish minority among car-users will then be just as gridlocked as the less selfish.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: There is a left filter into salisbury road. For the record, I am not a member of the Green Party. For a start I believe, having looked at the evidence, that Global Warming being caused by human activities is all hocum and completely made up. As this is a key part of the Green Party, I cannot agree with it and so am not a member. I am simply a person who mainly cycles round york (but also uses cars and public transport) and feels the city's cycling provision is rubbish. painting a line down Huntington Road doesn't make it a cycle lane, all it does is make motorists drive closer to the cyclist thus creating more of a hazard (especially as the one mentioned is as narrow as 60cm in places as opposed to the DfT's guidelines stating cycle lanes ideally be 2m (200cm) wide with 1.6m being acceptable), and then you combine that with the utterly atrocious attitude of a significant number of motorists towards cyclists - and it makes York quite a risky place to cycle around in. I'm by no means an amateur cyclist, as I've cycled from York to Middlesbrough twice via Bilsdale (the 'yorkshire tt'), countless times to hull, twice to manchester via emley moor, and to blackburn via ilkley, to bridlington twice straight along the A166, and to scarborough twice. And once I get out of York, drivers seem to give me more room when overtaking and generally are more courteous. Even Manchester feels safer to cycle in than York!! And the council removing the most crucial part of the Water End cycle lane simply smacks to me of small town thinking by politicians who just want to be liked rather than making a sensible decision and not wasting money reversing a decision. The money could easily be used on other things such as fixing Tranby Avenue in Osbaldwick, filling a few big pot holes, or maybe even lowering a speed hump that you catch the underside of your car on everytime you go over it. Instead the council is prepared to waste money on a few bits of paint all to shut up a few car drivers who can't decide for just one day in a week to use a different form of transport (if 50 people did that there'd be at least 40 cars less on Water End at peak time, as most vehicles there are single occupancy) - instead every motorist sits in their car saying "these bloody cyclists are making my journey to home longer" rather than thinking "what can I do about this to make my journey quicker and maybe speed up other peoples' journeys too?"... oh but wait, that's everybody else's responsibility isn't it??[/p][/quote]Excellent comment. Unfortunately I do not think the YP plays a constructive part in improving the attitude of a very small but vocal number of selfish motorists in this matter. If cyclists decline in York then cars will increase, and the selfish minority among car-users will then be just as gridlocked as the less selfish. again

3:47pm Tue 10 Apr 12

yorkshirelad says...

One of the most bizarre aspects of this debate is that when several people support a sensible cycling measure - all sorts of bizarre accusations are made up about who they are or that they are all one person. In the paranoid word of the cycling-hater...ther
e is only one person who supports modern cycling provision in York.
Well - look out of your window! There's a lot of people out there riding bikes in this great cycling city.

Labour may have painted themselves into a corner with this one but appeasing a local campaign will undermine many long term initiatives. This will surely undermine York's transport credibility and the wasted money will not easily be forgotten.

I have no party links but it will be noticed which politicians are taking a principled stand on this one. I would have thought that every councillor in York will know the transport challenges that York faces and how long term schemes often face short term local opposition.
One of the most bizarre aspects of this debate is that when several people support a sensible cycling measure - all sorts of bizarre accusations are made up about who they are or that they are all one person. In the paranoid word of the cycling-hater...ther e is only one person who supports modern cycling provision in York. Well - look out of your window! There's a lot of people out there riding bikes in this great cycling city. Labour may have painted themselves into a corner with this one but appeasing a local campaign will undermine many long term initiatives. This will surely undermine York's transport credibility and the wasted money will not easily be forgotten. I have no party links but it will be noticed which politicians are taking a principled stand on this one. I would have thought that every councillor in York will know the transport challenges that York faces and how long term schemes often face short term local opposition. yorkshirelad

11:28am Wed 11 Apr 12

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Scorpio says... 2:09pm Thu 5 Apr 12
Can anybody answer this?
How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years’

Whatever the number is, it is not enough in my book!
‘Scorpio says... 2:09pm Thu 5 Apr 12 Can anybody answer this? How many cyclists have been killed or injured at the junction in the last 20 years’ Whatever the number is, it is not enough in my book! Kevin Turvey

12:37pm Wed 11 Apr 12

Yorkie-Clifton says...

Non to my knowledge . Let us hope that achievement continues. .
Non to my knowledge . Let us hope that achievement continues. . Yorkie-Clifton

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree