COMMENT: Cycle lane a start to easing road headache

Oxford Mail: . .

LONDON Road in Headington is one of the most congested roads in the city.

Various solutions have been proposed to try to improve it over the years, but it has left a lot of heads being scratched.

Put simply, there are just too many cars on the roads and there isn’t really anything that can be done about it.

But with news of an extended cycle lane along the whole stretch of the road it may encourage more people to get out of their cars and on their bikes.

Any improvements to the area should be welcomed.

While it may not be the complete answer to the problem, at least the authorities are still looking at things that can be done.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:13am Fri 25 Apr 14

HeadingtonRabbit says...

As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea. HeadingtonRabbit
  • Score: 15

9:31am Fri 25 Apr 14

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

^exactly what i was thinking. Too often local councils provide cycle lanes that are far less useable than the adjacent carriageway. The council tick a box saying it's job done, then motorists get incensed when the cyclist still use the road.
^exactly what i was thinking. Too often local councils provide cycle lanes that are far less useable than the adjacent carriageway. The council tick a box saying it's job done, then motorists get incensed when the cyclist still use the road. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 15

9:52am Fri 25 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
[quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -11

9:59am Fri 25 Apr 14

alu355 says...

Whilst welcome, the reality is that most people can't cycle due to circumstances such as dropping kids at school, carry luggage, living far away etc.
If the idea is to reduce congestion in Headington then introducing charging at Thornhill Park and Ride wasn't helpful (people could have parked free there and cycled into Headington)
More cycle parking at different points in Headington/Marston would also be helpful.
Whilst welcome, the reality is that most people can't cycle due to circumstances such as dropping kids at school, carry luggage, living far away etc. If the idea is to reduce congestion in Headington then introducing charging at Thornhill Park and Ride wasn't helpful (people could have parked free there and cycled into Headington) More cycle parking at different points in Headington/Marston would also be helpful. alu355
  • Score: 8

10:48am Fri 25 Apr 14

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
@HomerSimpsonDoh -

I know this is akin to peeing in the win, reasoning with you, but:

Imagine if the junctions on Headington Road were inverted and that you had to give way to each side road. I think you'd find it a PITA too.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.[/p][/quote]@HomerSimpsonDoh - I know this is akin to peeing in the win, reasoning with you, but: Imagine if the junctions on Headington Road were inverted and that you had to give way to each side road. I think you'd find it a PITA too. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 11

10:55am Fri 25 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -7

11:05am Fri 25 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
Spouting the usual rubbish again.

When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists.

Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.[/p][/quote]Spouting the usual rubbish again. When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists. Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again? grandconjuration
  • Score: 16

11:15am Fri 25 Apr 14

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

Homer's missing the point as per, but I would take exception to something you just mentioned grand.

My bugbear with a cycle-lane on the left of a carriageway is that it encourages the sort of thoughtless undertaking that leads to accidents in such scenarios as a car turning left. In my opinion, as a driver and cyclist, the right of way in that situation should belong to the vehicle that is ahead. i.e, If the car ahead of you put's his left indicator on, that's his corner and you should not attempt to enter that particular wedge.

To me the current code is overiding common sense. I would rather be alive than have been killed/injured because it was 'my right of way'.
Homer's missing the point as per, but I would take exception to something you just mentioned grand. My bugbear with a cycle-lane on the left of a carriageway is that it encourages the sort of thoughtless undertaking that leads to accidents in such scenarios as a car turning left. In my opinion, as a driver and cyclist, the right of way in that situation should belong to the vehicle that is ahead. i.e, If the car ahead of you put's his left indicator on, that's his corner and you should not attempt to enter that particular wedge. To me the current code is overiding common sense. I would rather be alive than have been killed/injured because it was 'my right of way'. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 4

11:19am Fri 25 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

You only give way to pedestrians if they are already crossing, not if they are aproaching the junction or waiting to cross. Doh. The only ones complaining are cyclists because they have to give way at junctions! Doh. Anything that keeps them off the road is a good thing, just pity the pedestrians though.
You only give way to pedestrians if they are already crossing, not if they are aproaching the junction or waiting to cross. Doh. The only ones complaining are cyclists because they have to give way at junctions! Doh. Anything that keeps them off the road is a good thing, just pity the pedestrians though. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -13

11:25am Fri 25 Apr 14

HeadingtonRabbit says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road.

The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane.

This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.[/p][/quote]My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road. The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane. This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane. HeadingtonRabbit
  • Score: 8

11:37am Fri 25 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

You're missing the point. You stated that you do not give way turning into a road. That is incorrect. You give way to pedestrians who have started to cross (Rule 170) and you give way to cyclists who are on your left (Rule 182). The latter rule instructs you not to overtake just before making a left turn and to watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn - do not cut in on cyclists (there's even a little picture for those that can't read).

Nonny Mouse, you are correct - Rule 72 instructs cyclists not to ride on the inside of vehicles indicating to turn left. Which is why a properly designed segregated cycleway would force a motorist to give way before turning across it.

Homer - why do you 'pity the pedestrians'. Do you have any statistics to back up your insinuations? Last time I looked motorists kill 40-60 pedestrians every year while on the pavement, cyclists kill 0.
You're missing the point. You stated that you do not give way turning into a road. That is incorrect. You give way to pedestrians who have started to cross (Rule 170) and you give way to cyclists who are on your left (Rule 182). The latter rule instructs you not to overtake just before making a left turn and to watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn - do not cut in on cyclists (there's even a little picture for those that can't read). Nonny Mouse, you are correct - Rule 72 instructs cyclists not to ride on the inside of vehicles indicating to turn left. Which is why a properly designed segregated cycleway would force a motorist to give way before turning across it. Homer - why do you 'pity the pedestrians'. Do you have any statistics to back up your insinuations? Last time I looked motorists kill 40-60 pedestrians every year while on the pavement, cyclists kill 0. grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

11:55am Fri 25 Apr 14

Madi50n says...

I don't know why you bother arguing with dohboy and his anti-cyclist team, he is/they are either as thick as two short planks or a troll.

Either way it's pointless.

Ignore it and if its a troll, it'll either give up trolling and slink back under its bridge; if it's stupidity you're dealing with you could use pictures and big letters and it will still ignore all the facts and think it is right.

I've given up with it and all its fellow trolls/dimboids.
I don't know why you bother arguing with dohboy and his anti-cyclist team, he is/they are either as thick as two short planks or a troll. Either way it's pointless. Ignore it and if its a troll, it'll either give up trolling and slink back under its bridge; if it's stupidity you're dealing with you could use pictures and big letters and it will still ignore all the facts and think it is right. I've given up with it and all its fellow trolls/dimboids. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

12:18pm Fri 25 Apr 14

King Joke says...

HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road.

The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane.

This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.
Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t.

If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway.
[quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.[/p][/quote]My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road. The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane. This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.[/p][/quote]Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t. If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway. King Joke
  • Score: 14

1:55pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Floflo says...

King Joke wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road.

The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane.

This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.
Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t.

If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway.
Exactly. Most drivers understand this and even when there is an adjacent cycle lane give you adequate room when overtaking.

The trouble is the hard of thinking, I assume people like duh boy Bart, don't understand that some cycle lanes are less than useful and try to teach you a lesson for not using them and deliberately do a 'punishment pass'.

I'd prefer no cycle lanes than badly designed and implemented cycle lanes.

I hope this new cycle lane doesn't make it harder to cycle along than if you were to cycle along the road.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.[/p][/quote]My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road. The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane. This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.[/p][/quote]Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t. If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Most drivers understand this and even when there is an adjacent cycle lane give you adequate room when overtaking. The trouble is the hard of thinking, I assume people like duh boy Bart, don't understand that some cycle lanes are less than useful and try to teach you a lesson for not using them and deliberately do a 'punishment pass'. I'd prefer no cycle lanes than badly designed and implemented cycle lanes. I hope this new cycle lane doesn't make it harder to cycle along than if you were to cycle along the road. Floflo
  • Score: 7

1:55pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Floflo says...

King Joke wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.
I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.
My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road.

The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane.

This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.
Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t.

If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway.
Exactly. Most drivers understand this and even when there is an adjacent cycle lane give you adequate room when overtaking.

The trouble is the hard of thinking, I assume people like duh boy Bart, don't understand that some cycle lanes are less than useful and try to teach you a lesson for not using them and deliberately do a 'punishment pass'.

I'd prefer no cycle lanes than badly designed and implemented cycle lanes.

I hope this new cycle lane doesn't make it harder to cycle along than if you were to cycle along the road.
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: As long as it's not a cycle lane that has to; give way to every side road, has to navigate around trees, bins and bus stops and is shared with pedestrians, this will be a great idea.[/p][/quote]I know, its terrible that cycists would have to give way at junctions like other road users. Maybe the council will cut down the trees, move all the bins and bus stops for you. Cyclists are never happy unless everything is put in place for them and sod the rest.[/p][/quote]My point is that if I am cycling in the same direction as the traffic (towards Barton), why should I have to navigate a car sat at a junction waiting to pull out onto the London Road. The cycle lanes are designed in such a way that, traffic which cannot pull out onto the London Road (due to congestion) is blocking a free-flowing cycle lane. This is why I cycle in the bus lane when heading from Barton towards Headington. The Cycle lane on the other side of the road is not fit for purpose as a two-way cycle lane.[/p][/quote]Rabbit is right and Homer is a t!t. If I drive along the London Rd I have priority over side roads. If I cycle along it in the cycle lane, I am obliged to give way to all of them. It's one of the reasons I never use those on-pavement cycle lanes, it's vastly quicker just to use the main carriageway.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Most drivers understand this and even when there is an adjacent cycle lane give you adequate room when overtaking. The trouble is the hard of thinking, I assume people like duh boy Bart, don't understand that some cycle lanes are less than useful and try to teach you a lesson for not using them and deliberately do a 'punishment pass'. I'd prefer no cycle lanes than badly designed and implemented cycle lanes. I hope this new cycle lane doesn't make it harder to cycle along than if you were to cycle along the road. Floflo
  • Score: 1

2:14pm Fri 25 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

As I said, Cyclsits are never happy. Give them an inch and they want a mile.
As I said, Cyclsits are never happy. Give them an inch and they want a mile. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -6

3:59pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

Let's hope it isn't delivered as a "fair weather" cycle path - as nearly all are in Oxford.

It needs to be designed to discourage flooding and standing water in the heaviest rain. It should also be easily cleared of snow and ice in the winter.

If neither of those can be done, then it is far better to simply have an extra-wide road that is well kept in all weathers.
Let's hope it isn't delivered as a "fair weather" cycle path - as nearly all are in Oxford. It needs to be designed to discourage flooding and standing water in the heaviest rain. It should also be easily cleared of snow and ice in the winter. If neither of those can be done, then it is far better to simply have an extra-wide road that is well kept in all weathers. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 6

8:15am Sat 26 Apr 14

Danny A says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
Let's hope it isn't delivered as a "fair weather" cycle path - as nearly all are in Oxford.

It needs to be designed to discourage flooding and standing water in the heaviest rain. It should also be easily cleared of snow and ice in the winter.

If neither of those can be done, then it is far better to simply have an extra-wide road that is well kept in all weathers.
Dream on. It will be exactly the same as the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road, a painted white line on the pavement.
This is being done purely because it is easy, the pavement is wide and people cycle on it anyway, understandably, rather than cross the busy road to ride on the opposite pavement that has such a painted white line.
So essentially there will be no change other than the current local pavement cyclists will no longer be breaking the law.
Expect Oxford City Council to pay Millions for this painted white line.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: Let's hope it isn't delivered as a "fair weather" cycle path - as nearly all are in Oxford. It needs to be designed to discourage flooding and standing water in the heaviest rain. It should also be easily cleared of snow and ice in the winter. If neither of those can be done, then it is far better to simply have an extra-wide road that is well kept in all weathers.[/p][/quote]Dream on. It will be exactly the same as the cycle lane on the opposite side of the road, a painted white line on the pavement. This is being done purely because it is easy, the pavement is wide and people cycle on it anyway, understandably, rather than cross the busy road to ride on the opposite pavement that has such a painted white line. So essentially there will be no change other than the current local pavement cyclists will no longer be breaking the law. Expect Oxford City Council to pay Millions for this painted white line. Danny A
  • Score: 7

2:22pm Mon 28 Apr 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
I don't know why you bother arguing with dohboy and his anti-cyclist team, he is/they are either as thick as two short planks or a troll.

Either way it's pointless.

Ignore it and if its a troll, it'll either give up trolling and slink back under its bridge; if it's stupidity you're dealing with you could use pictures and big letters and it will still ignore all the facts and think it is right.

I've given up with it and all its fellow trolls/dimboids.
Oh dear....you really are unable to debate any opinion which differs from yours without resorting to pathetic personal insults are you ?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I don't know why you bother arguing with dohboy and his anti-cyclist team, he is/they are either as thick as two short planks or a troll. Either way it's pointless. Ignore it and if its a troll, it'll either give up trolling and slink back under its bridge; if it's stupidity you're dealing with you could use pictures and big letters and it will still ignore all the facts and think it is right. I've given up with it and all its fellow trolls/dimboids.[/p][/quote]Oh dear....you really are unable to debate any opinion which differs from yours without resorting to pathetic personal insults are you ? livid99
  • Score: -2

3:30pm Mon 28 Apr 14

tinsel84 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
Spouting the usual rubbish again.

When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists.

Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?
If it is rule 72 you are talking about, it is a safe code of practice rather than an actual law. There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians automatic right of way as a junction, however you should be checking for them to avoid hitting them if they do come out into the road unexpectedly. Anything in the highway code which is backed up by law starts with "you must/not".

I hope this new cycle lane isn't one of those stupid painted on ones. I can't see the point in these at all as you should allow the same space as you would overtaking another car.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.[/p][/quote]Spouting the usual rubbish again. When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists. Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?[/p][/quote]If it is rule 72 you are talking about, it is a safe code of practice rather than an actual law. There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians automatic right of way as a junction, however you should be checking for them to avoid hitting them if they do come out into the road unexpectedly. Anything in the highway code which is backed up by law starts with "you must/not". I hope this new cycle lane isn't one of those stupid painted on ones. I can't see the point in these at all as you should allow the same space as you would overtaking another car. tinsel84
  • Score: 3

8:20am Tue 29 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

tinsel84 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
Spouting the usual rubbish again.

When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists.

Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?
If it is rule 72 you are talking about, it is a safe code of practice rather than an actual law. There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians automatic right of way as a junction, however you should be checking for them to avoid hitting them if they do come out into the road unexpectedly. Anything in the highway code which is backed up by law starts with "you must/not".

I hope this new cycle lane isn't one of those stupid painted on ones. I can't see the point in these at all as you should allow the same space as you would overtaking another car.
There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians or motorists automatic right of way as a junction,

Remember, roads are for people, not just motor vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.[/p][/quote]Spouting the usual rubbish again. When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists. Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?[/p][/quote]If it is rule 72 you are talking about, it is a safe code of practice rather than an actual law. There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians automatic right of way as a junction, however you should be checking for them to avoid hitting them if they do come out into the road unexpectedly. Anything in the highway code which is backed up by law starts with "you must/not". I hope this new cycle lane isn't one of those stupid painted on ones. I can't see the point in these at all as you should allow the same space as you would overtaking another car.[/p][/quote]There is nothing enshrined in law which gives cyclists / pedestrians or motorists automatic right of way as a junction, Remember, roads are for people, not just motor vehicles. grandconjuration
  • Score: 6

12:02pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Mapplum says...

Am now hoping that the A40 Wheatley to Headington cycle track is cleared of overhanging/overgrow
n vegetation and encroaching grass to make it a decent enough width for two cyclists to pass one another...
Am now hoping that the A40 Wheatley to Headington cycle track is cleared of overhanging/overgrow n vegetation and encroaching grass to make it a decent enough width for two cyclists to pass one another... Mapplum
  • Score: 5

6:07pm Tue 29 Apr 14

deedee444 says...

Waste of ££££ we all know that the dime bar cyclists won't use them as with the cutteslowe to Kidlington road. idiots on 2 wheels.
Waste of ££££ we all know that the dime bar cyclists won't use them as with the cutteslowe to Kidlington road. idiots on 2 wheels. deedee444
  • Score: -6

6:51pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Fantomas says...

oh goodie! a new cycle track, that will give Oxfords drivers something new to park their cars over.
oh goodie! a new cycle track, that will give Oxfords drivers something new to park their cars over. Fantomas
  • Score: 4

3:06pm Wed 30 Apr 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
Spouting the usual rubbish again.

When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists.

Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?
ERR, you do not give way when signaling to make a left turn, cyclists and pedestrians must give way, read the H.C. But if the motorist is not signaling, then he/she is 100% in the wrong. Put simply so that you can understand, if a motorist is signaling left a cyclist must not undertake and must hold back, and a pedestrian mus wait at the side of the road and wait until it is safe to cross.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.[/p][/quote]Spouting the usual rubbish again. When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists. Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?[/p][/quote]ERR, you do not give way when signaling to make a left turn, cyclists and pedestrians must give way, read the H.C. But if the motorist is not signaling, then he/she is 100% in the wrong. Put simply so that you can understand, if a motorist is signaling left a cyclist must not undertake and must hold back, and a pedestrian mus wait at the side of the road and wait until it is safe to cross. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -1

4:49pm Wed 30 Apr 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.
Spouting the usual rubbish again.

When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists.

Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?
ERR, you do not give way when signaling to make a left turn, cyclists and pedestrians must give way, read the H.C. But if the motorist is not signaling, then he/she is 100% in the wrong. Put simply so that you can understand, if a motorist is signaling left a cyclist must not undertake and must hold back, and a pedestrian mus wait at the side of the road and wait until it is safe to cross.
Incorrect.

Firstly, you need to understand the difference between 'crossing' and 'about to cross'. I stated that vehicles should give way to pedestrians crossing the road - crossING i.e. currently in the act of walking across the road (Highway Code Rule 170).

Secondly, as already discussed above, in the absence of a cycle lane a cyclist should not undertake a vehicle signalling to turn left (Rule 72).

However, if a cycle lane is present this is NOT the case...

Highway Code Rule 183 - when turning give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction. Note the words 'give', 'way' and 'cycle lane'.

Err, I hope that this is simple enough for you to understand.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: The fact is when turning into a side road from a main road, you do not give way, so you would not expect some cyclsit to come bombing down the path and not stop. You are already looking out for traffic coming in the opposite direction and may not see any cyclists on the path until you have started to turn, by then it would be to late to stop unless you want to cause more accidents! We all get inconvienced at some time in our journey, cyclists should be no different.[/p][/quote]Spouting the usual rubbish again. When turning into a side road from a main road you DO give way. You give way to cycles in a cycle lane and you give way to pedestrians crossing the side road. This is clearly stated in the Highway Code but all too often ignored by motorists. Why are the usual idiots complaining about measures to ease congestion yet again?[/p][/quote]ERR, you do not give way when signaling to make a left turn, cyclists and pedestrians must give way, read the H.C. But if the motorist is not signaling, then he/she is 100% in the wrong. Put simply so that you can understand, if a motorist is signaling left a cyclist must not undertake and must hold back, and a pedestrian mus wait at the side of the road and wait until it is safe to cross.[/p][/quote]Incorrect. Firstly, you need to understand the difference between 'crossing' and 'about to cross'. I stated that vehicles should give way to pedestrians crossing the road - crossING i.e. currently in the act of walking across the road (Highway Code Rule 170). Secondly, as already discussed above, in the absence of a cycle lane a cyclist should not undertake a vehicle signalling to turn left (Rule 72). However, if a cycle lane is present this is NOT the case... Highway Code Rule 183 - when turning give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction. Note the words 'give', 'way' and 'cycle lane'. Err, I hope that this is simple enough for you to understand. grandconjuration
  • Score: 4

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