How would you spend £347,000 on cycle improvements in Oxford?

Cyclox chairman Simon Hunt

Cyclox chairman Simon Hunt

First published in News by

THE head of transport for the city wants Oxford Mail readers to tell him how hundreds of thousands of remaining cash should be spent on improving conditions for cyclists in the city.

We revealed on Monday that only about £15,000 of a dedicated £362,000 has been spent on the Cycle City scheme over the past two years.

Now calls are being made for readers to tell the Oxford City Council exactly how the cash should be spent.

 John Tanner, who took on the council’s transport role in May, said: “I’d like your readers to let us know what they’d like to see us do, and look for solutions.

“I’d really like people’s ideas about where they [the council] should spend this money.

“The thing about cycling is that you can spend very little amounts and transform the situation.”

The Cycle City funds need to be spent by the end of the 2015-16 financial year.

Mr Tanner, 68, a retired former citizens’ advice worker, is a regular cyclist. He rides his bike from his New Hinksey home more often than he walks, drives his car, or catches the bus.

“Most of the time cycling is the best way to get about Oxford. It’s fast and efficient. It’s safer and healthier.”

Simon Hunt, chairman of cycling lobby group Cyclox, thinks increasing signage for cycling routes is a low-cost, high-impact initiative.

Signage not only raised the profile of cycling, but was also “helpful in guiding less experienced cyclists to the preferable routes off the main roads,” he said.

But Mr Hunt added: “There are plenty of things that need to be done. There are parts of Oxford that are still very bad.

“The quality of the [road] surface is frequently appalling.”

The cycling lane outside St Giles’ Church on Banbury Road was particularly “uncycleable” he said.

Marking for cycle routes on roads has worn out in many places, such as Cowley Road, and needs to be renewed, the cycling campaigner claimed.

Mr Hunt added that the city council could also improve infrastructure for “inclusive cycling”; that is, bicycles beyond the standard two-wheel bikes, such as family bikes and cycles with trailers.

“These are the kinds of things the council should be spending its money on.”

Steve Stuart, co-owner of Warlands Cycles, in Botley Road, said the council should put cycling lanes on both sides of Botley Road under the railway bridge next to the station.

Honour Tomkinson, the owner of Walton Street Cycles, thinks cycling should be made safer for children riding to school, by building segregated bike paths that are separate from footpaths and roads.

Oxford City Council announced the Cycle City cash in 2012 but all work needs approval from Oxfordshire County Council, the highways authority.

Projects announced in 2012 included £30,000 for a cycle lane on Marston Road and removing pavement parking on Donnington Bridge Road.

Residents can contact Mr Tanner in the following ways:

  • Post: 32 Sunningwell Road, Oxford, OX1 4SX
  • Phone: 01865 251441
  • Email: cllrjtanner@oxford.gov.uk
  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS and SPORT depending on what services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.
  • Our top stories

Tributes paid to man stabbed to death by Abingdon riverbank

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Tuesday 21st October 2014

A WOMAN was last night being held in custody on suspicion of murder after a man was found fatally stabbed in Abingdon.

UPDATE: Woman, 40, appears in court charged with murder after a man was stabbed in Abingdon

Oxford Mail:

10:03am Tuesday 21st October 2014

A WOMAN has appeared in court charged with murder after a man was stabbed in Abingdon on Sunday night.

Pensioner dies in hospital after motorbike crash

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

3:39pm Tuesday 21st October 2014

A 74-year-old  man who was injured when his motorcycle collided with a car last month has died in hospital.

Robber sent to prison for part in £11,000 Park End Street attack

Oxford Mail: Oxford Crown Court

9:00am Tuesday 21st October 2014

A ROBBER who beat a man up as a distraction while his accomplice stole £11,000 from his victim’s wife has been jailed.

Let Oxford expand beyond its boundaries says housing crisis report

Oxford Mail: oxford city council logo

7:30am Tuesday 21st October 2014

OXFORD is an example of a city which should be allowed to grow beyond its boundaries, according to a national report.

Drop former English Defence League leader as speaker, Oxford Union urged

Oxford Mail: The Oxford Union

6:40am Tuesday 21st October 2014

NEARLY 200 Oxford academics, students, councillors and trade union leaders have signed an open letter calling for the Oxford Union to cancel an invitation to the former leader of the English Defence League to speak.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:51am Thu 17 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

I overheard sustrans telling cyclists yesterday that we're very lucky with our cycle tracks and so forth in Oxford so I don't think there's any justification to spend money there. Some of the markings could do with re painting but so many people ignore these things anyway.

Surely this shouldn't just be about improving things for cyclists?

I think the money would be best given to the police so they have a better chance of enforcing laws for speeding. That way cyclists get safer roads and don't push the problem onto pedestrians.
I overheard sustrans telling cyclists yesterday that we're very lucky with our cycle tracks and so forth in Oxford so I don't think there's any justification to spend money there. Some of the markings could do with re painting but so many people ignore these things anyway. Surely this shouldn't just be about improving things for cyclists? I think the money would be best given to the police so they have a better chance of enforcing laws for speeding. That way cyclists get safer roads and don't push the problem onto pedestrians. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: -15

7:53am Thu 17 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -20

8:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn. grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

8:43am Thu 17 Jul 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

In the meantime, the money should be used to clear all hedges, bushes and trees that impede in any way onto the pavement up to the height of 9ft (to accommodate tall with umbrella).

That way cyclists are kept safe from the danger of pedestrians, who are being abused by ignorant property owners, accidently stepping into their silent path.
In the meantime, the money should be used to clear all hedges, bushes and trees that impede in any way onto the pavement up to the height of 9ft (to accommodate tall with umbrella). That way cyclists are kept safe from the danger of pedestrians, who are being abused by ignorant property owners, accidently stepping into their silent path. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 9

8:45am Thu 17 Jul 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
Yawn, maybe, but you cannot disagree that it isn't a problem as is cycling with no lights. I'm not knocking cyclists I'm just saying that they are not all as innocent as some would have us believe.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn.[/p][/quote]Yawn, maybe, but you cannot disagree that it isn't a problem as is cycling with no lights. I'm not knocking cyclists I'm just saying that they are not all as innocent as some would have us believe. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: -4

9:10am Thu 17 Jul 14

Myron Blatz says...

Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive! Myron Blatz
  • Score: -19

9:53am Thu 17 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

Myron Blatz wrote:
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Why do articles about cycling attract loons?
[quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive![/p][/quote]Why do articles about cycling attract loons? grandconjuration
  • Score: 26

9:58am Thu 17 Jul 14

Niko Bellic says...

In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh!
In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh! Niko Bellic
  • Score: 13

10:00am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oxonian says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Myron Blatz wrote:
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Why do articles about cycling attract loons?
Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?"

It's true: here you are again.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive![/p][/quote]Why do articles about cycling attract loons?[/p][/quote]Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?" It's true: here you are again. Oxonian
  • Score: -14

10:19am Thu 17 Jul 14

EMBOX2 says...

£347,000 would improve my cycle enormously - I would buy a bike.

The remaining £346,600 I would spent on advertising, asking residents of Oxford not to vote for another idiot city council next time around...
£347,000 would improve my cycle enormously - I would buy a bike. The remaining £346,600 I would spent on advertising, asking residents of Oxford not to vote for another idiot city council next time around... EMBOX2
  • Score: 3

10:24am Thu 17 Jul 14

mytaxes says...

Buy all cyclists a decent bell that they can ring to warn pedestrians on the towpath instead of screeching to a halt behind them and telling them to get out of the way.
Buy all cyclists a decent bell that they can ring to warn pedestrians on the towpath instead of screeching to a halt behind them and telling them to get out of the way. mytaxes
  • Score: -4

12:48pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
In the meantime, the money should be used to clear all hedges, bushes and trees that impede in any way onto the pavement up to the height of 9ft (to accommodate tall with umbrella).

That way cyclists are kept safe from the danger of pedestrians, who are being abused by ignorant property owners, accidently stepping into their silent path.
The cycle tracks in Oxford are in good condition, specifically, mostly not overgrown and it's against the law to cycle on a footpath alongside a road. So no.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: In the meantime, the money should be used to clear all hedges, bushes and trees that impede in any way onto the pavement up to the height of 9ft (to accommodate tall with umbrella). That way cyclists are kept safe from the danger of pedestrians, who are being abused by ignorant property owners, accidently stepping into their silent path.[/p][/quote]The cycle tracks in Oxford are in good condition, specifically, mostly not overgrown and it's against the law to cycle on a footpath alongside a road. So no. Geoff Roberts
  • Score: -6

12:49pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Geoff Roberts says...

Niko Bellic wrote:
In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh!
Is that so you've got more room on the road to complete your missions?
[quote][p][bold]Niko Bellic[/bold] wrote: In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh![/p][/quote]Is that so you've got more room on the road to complete your missions? Geoff Roberts
  • Score: 4

12:56pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

It's an easy solution.

Ban all private motor cars from inside the ring road; except for those who:

a. own homes inside the ring road
b. need to use a private vehicle for mobility (blue badge holders etc.)

Delivery drivers can only use those roads excpet in rush hours, say between 7 am and 10 am then 4 pm and 6 pm.

If you want to use a private vehicle in sdie the ring road you would have to pay an extortionate fee per day.

Everyone else can walk, cycle, ride a horse, catch a bus or a taxi.
It's an easy solution. Ban all private motor cars from inside the ring road; except for those who: a. own homes inside the ring road b. need to use a private vehicle for mobility (blue badge holders etc.) Delivery drivers can only use those roads excpet in rush hours, say between 7 am and 10 am then 4 pm and 6 pm. If you want to use a private vehicle in sdie the ring road you would have to pay an extortionate fee per day. Everyone else can walk, cycle, ride a horse, catch a bus or a taxi. Madi50n
  • Score: 14

12:58pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road. Madi50n
  • Score: 8

1:38pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Floflo says...

Niko Bellic wrote:
In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh!
I wouldn't take any space away from pedestrians, but I would scrap many of the cycle paths.

They are generally less than helpful for the cyclist. For the hard of thinking driver, who can't understand why cycling along a pavement with a line marking a cycle path, it only causes irritation seeing a cyclist ignoring a cycle path. The cyclist often has to deal with these selfish drivers who deliberately pass close to 'teach them a lesson'.

Much better to invest in proper cycle paths than to paint white lines on pavements and call them cycle paths.
[quote][p][bold]Niko Bellic[/bold] wrote: In some areas of Oxford (Marston and Headington in particular spring to mind) at least half of the cyclists use the road to cycle rather than the cycle paths. In these areas I would scrap the cycle paths (as part of the pavements) and widen the roads. Marston Road would gain an extra 15-20 feet of width. Then I'd make it safer for the cyclists on the road by introducing marked lanes. Revolutionary eh![/p][/quote]I wouldn't take any space away from pedestrians, but I would scrap many of the cycle paths. They are generally less than helpful for the cyclist. For the hard of thinking driver, who can't understand why cycling along a pavement with a line marking a cycle path, it only causes irritation seeing a cyclist ignoring a cycle path. The cyclist often has to deal with these selfish drivers who deliberately pass close to 'teach them a lesson'. Much better to invest in proper cycle paths than to paint white lines on pavements and call them cycle paths. Floflo
  • Score: 16

1:39pm Thu 17 Jul 14

olafpalme says...

Myron Blatz wrote:
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Electric power won't reduce vehicle congestion at all. Peak oil is not equal to peak car.
[quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive![/p][/quote]Electric power won't reduce vehicle congestion at all. Peak oil is not equal to peak car. olafpalme
  • Score: -1

1:44pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Floflo says...

I'd save the cash and put it towards the Botley to Eynsham foot and cycle path. There's a real need for this as the road is currently unusable for many people in the communities at each end.

Sadly it's a tiny amount of cash in comparison with the money spent on infrastructure exclusively reserved for motorists, For instance just one of the 'hamburger' roundabouts costs upwards of 7 million - and this expense saves a few seconds of people journey times rather than having the potential to open up existing roads to all.
I'd save the cash and put it towards the Botley to Eynsham foot and cycle path. There's a real need for this as the road is currently unusable for many people in the communities at each end. Sadly it's a tiny amount of cash in comparison with the money spent on infrastructure exclusively reserved for motorists, For instance just one of the 'hamburger' roundabouts costs upwards of 7 million - and this expense saves a few seconds of people journey times rather than having the potential to open up existing roads to all. Floflo
  • Score: 16

7:54am Fri 18 Jul 14

IS says...

They could use some of the money to put measures in place to enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross Hinksey Hill roundabout safely. The plans seems to have been drawn up by chaps looking at maps and not visiting the site. It'll be very dangerous to cross on the south side once the ring road traffic can get onto the A34 without traffic lights and on the north side it's not a cycle path.
They could use some of the money to put measures in place to enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross Hinksey Hill roundabout safely. The plans seems to have been drawn up by chaps looking at maps and not visiting the site. It'll be very dangerous to cross on the south side once the ring road traffic can get onto the A34 without traffic lights and on the north side it's not a cycle path. IS
  • Score: 5

6:58pm Fri 18 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

Oxonian wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Myron Blatz wrote:
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Why do articles about cycling attract loons?
Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?"

It's true: here you are again.
There's no need for that, Tony.
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive![/p][/quote]Why do articles about cycling attract loons?[/p][/quote]Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?" It's true: here you are again.[/p][/quote]There's no need for that, Tony. grandconjuration
  • Score: 5

2:42am Sun 20 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn.[/p][/quote]Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -6

2:45am Sun 20 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Oxonian wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Myron Blatz wrote:
Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive!
Why do articles about cycling attract loons?
Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?"

It's true: here you are again.
HAHAHA :-)
[quote][p][bold]Oxonian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Myron Blatz[/bold] wrote: Think HomerSimpsonDoh has got it about right - and I cycle, drive and use public transport! Most of these pro-cycle people seem unable to get to grips with the reality of life in the 21st century - which for these cycling-mad eco-warriors will only get worse, as electric-power takes over cars, vans and public transport - and if the cycling lobby think buses are dangerous, they should let their kids loose near tramways, like many British service families used to have to cope with in cities in Europe! The Government should also make it illegal for cyclists to place small children on the front and back of the adult's cycle, and illegal to tow 'kiddie trailers' around as though they are 'saving the planet' in inner-city and urban mixed traffic, and irresponsibly using children to make eco-political statements. And what next, pedal ambulances and fire engines being ridden by lycra-clad manic 'pedal-medics' trying to take patients from Swindon to the JR along kilometers of specially built cycleways? No, of course not - the patients would be treated in cottage hospitals, where electricity would be generated by yet more eco-warriors, frantically using pedal generators to keep patients alive![/p][/quote]Why do articles about cycling attract loons?[/p][/quote]Grandconjuration says "Why do articles about cycling attract loons?" It's true: here you are again.[/p][/quote]HAHAHA :-) The New Private Eye
  • Score: -9

2:51am Sun 20 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -7

8:37am Sun 20 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.
This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.?

You're a law-breaking hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn.[/p][/quote]Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.[/p][/quote]This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.? You're a law-breaking hypocrite. grandconjuration
  • Score: 10

6:20pm Sun 20 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

grandconjuration wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.
This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.?

You're a law-breaking hypocrite.
I decided that if you can't beat them, then I will join your band of lawbreakers GC. And I must say that when driving and following the cyclists version of the highway code driving is much more fun, but I had to shell out on a couple of different number plates so that I could be as anon as you and your fellow (and now me included) lawbreakers. Thanks GC for the suggestion, much appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn.[/p][/quote]Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.[/p][/quote]This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.? You're a law-breaking hypocrite.[/p][/quote]I decided that if you can't beat them, then I will join your band of lawbreakers GC. And I must say that when driving and following the cyclists version of the highway code driving is much more fun, but I had to shell out on a couple of different number plates so that I could be as anon as you and your fellow (and now me included) lawbreakers. Thanks GC for the suggestion, much appreciated. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -8

6:48pm Sun 20 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.
Yawn.
Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.
This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.?

You're a law-breaking hypocrite.
I decided that if you can't beat them, then I will join your band of lawbreakers GC. And I must say that when driving and following the cyclists version of the highway code driving is much more fun, but I had to shell out on a couple of different number plates so that I could be as anon as you and your fellow (and now me included) lawbreakers. Thanks GC for the suggestion, much appreciated.
That's twice you refer to me as being a law breaker. Can you please provide evidence or a statement where I have admitted breaking the law, or even supported the breaking of laws.

Keep on speeding NPE and defending those that do. I only hope that you get taken off the road ASAP.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Most of the money should be spent on educating cyclists on how to cycle. Give them some coloured crayons and see if they can fill in the colours of traffic lights.[/p][/quote]Yawn.[/p][/quote]Quite right Homer, the voice of reason as usual, and the money could buy a copy of The Highway Code for all of them as well.[/p][/quote]This would be the Highway Code that you admitted ignoring in a previous comments thread when you admitted speeding.? You're a law-breaking hypocrite.[/p][/quote]I decided that if you can't beat them, then I will join your band of lawbreakers GC. And I must say that when driving and following the cyclists version of the highway code driving is much more fun, but I had to shell out on a couple of different number plates so that I could be as anon as you and your fellow (and now me included) lawbreakers. Thanks GC for the suggestion, much appreciated.[/p][/quote]That's twice you refer to me as being a law breaker. Can you please provide evidence or a statement where I have admitted breaking the law, or even supported the breaking of laws. Keep on speeding NPE and defending those that do. I only hope that you get taken off the road ASAP. grandconjuration
  • Score: 9

8:15am Mon 21 Jul 14

Fantomas says...

IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.
IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists. Fantomas
  • Score: 5

8:18am Mon 21 Jul 14

Fantomas says...

Students forbidden from riding bikes until they have had basic cycling proficiency hammered into them
Students forbidden from riding bikes until they have had basic cycling proficiency hammered into them Fantomas
  • Score: 0

9:43am Mon 21 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
It's an easy solution.

Ban all private motor cars from inside the ring road; except for those who:

a. own homes inside the ring road
b. need to use a private vehicle for mobility (blue badge holders etc.)

Delivery drivers can only use those roads excpet in rush hours, say between 7 am and 10 am then 4 pm and 6 pm.

If you want to use a private vehicle in sdie the ring road you would have to pay an extortionate fee per day.

Everyone else can walk, cycle, ride a horse, catch a bus or a taxi.
Ridiculous suggestion.
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: It's an easy solution. Ban all private motor cars from inside the ring road; except for those who: a. own homes inside the ring road b. need to use a private vehicle for mobility (blue badge holders etc.) Delivery drivers can only use those roads excpet in rush hours, say between 7 am and 10 am then 4 pm and 6 pm. If you want to use a private vehicle in sdie the ring road you would have to pay an extortionate fee per day. Everyone else can walk, cycle, ride a horse, catch a bus or a taxi.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous suggestion. livid99
  • Score: -1

2:43pm Mon 21 Jul 14

oafie says...

Fit all bicycles sold in Oxford with lights, that cannot be removed, and provide cyclists with hi vis vests stating they are cyclists and therefore they take no responsibility for their own actions.
Fit all bicycles sold in Oxford with lights, that cannot be removed, and provide cyclists with hi vis vests stating they are cyclists and therefore they take no responsibility for their own actions. oafie
  • Score: -6

6:49pm Mon 21 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?[/p][/quote]And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts. The New Private Eye
  • Score: -12

7:16pm Mon 21 Jul 14

Madi50n says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.
I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE.

So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant.

In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/
slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant.

Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up.

So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?[/p][/quote]And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE. So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant. In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/ slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant. Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up. So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do. Madi50n
  • Score: 11

8:36pm Mon 21 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

'The New a Private Eye'. A law-breaker who has the nerve to complain about other law-breakers. Your comments are free of fact, free of thought and irrelevant.
'The New a Private Eye'. A law-breaker who has the nerve to complain about other law-breakers. Your comments are free of fact, free of thought and irrelevant. grandconjuration
  • Score: 11

2:48pm Tue 22 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.
I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE.

So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant.

In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/

slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant.

Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up.

So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.
That's a wee bit strong is it not?. But if my lucid, factual, thought provoking comments can raise such a reaction, then at least some good is coming of it, even if you are yet to see the light. But there is one thing that I do not understand, yourself and GC always seem to have the most comments on any story concerning motorists and cyclo's and you seem to be trawling all other stories for comments that I have made, yet you call me a TROLL. So what does that make you?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?[/p][/quote]And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE. So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant. In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/ slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant. Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up. So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.[/p][/quote]That's a wee bit strong is it not?. But if my lucid, factual, thought provoking comments can raise such a reaction, then at least some good is coming of it, even if you are yet to see the light. But there is one thing that I do not understand, yourself and GC always seem to have the most comments on any story concerning motorists and cyclo's and you seem to be trawling all other stories for comments that I have made, yet you call me a TROLL. So what does that make you? The New Private Eye
  • Score: -9

2:58pm Tue 22 Jul 14

andy1975 says...

Simple. Build proper seperate cycle lanes along major routes into the city centre.
Simple. Build proper seperate cycle lanes along major routes into the city centre. andy1975
  • Score: 10

10:06am Wed 23 Jul 14

NixLa1974 says...

Fantomas wrote:
IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.
Same for the cyclists !!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Fantomas[/bold] wrote: IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.[/p][/quote]Same for the cyclists !!!!!!!!!! NixLa1974
  • Score: 0

10:46am Wed 23 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Fantomas wrote:
IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.
Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion.
[quote][p][bold]Fantomas[/bold] wrote: IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.[/p][/quote]Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion. livid99
  • Score: -2

10:48am Wed 23 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.
I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE.

So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant.

In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/

slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant.

Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up.

So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.
You seem incapable of responding to anyone without using personal insults can you ?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?[/p][/quote]And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE. So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant. In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/ slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant. Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up. So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.[/p][/quote]You seem incapable of responding to anyone without using personal insults can you ? livid99
  • Score: -2

10:54am Wed 23 Jul 14

livid99 says...

The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
The New Private Eye wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
For clarity, that should be

a. Live inside the ring road.
No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?
And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.
I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE.

So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant.

In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/


slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant.

Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up.

So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.
That's a wee bit strong is it not?. But if my lucid, factual, thought provoking comments can raise such a reaction, then at least some good is coming of it, even if you are yet to see the light. But there is one thing that I do not understand, yourself and GC always seem to have the most comments on any story concerning motorists and cyclo's and you seem to be trawling all other stories for comments that I have made, yet you call me a TROLL. So what does that make you?
Madi50n is a strange one.....claims not to be a cyclist, but erupts into fits of abusive rage at the slightest hint of any criticism of cyclists.
I guess there is a medical term for this.
[quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The New Private Eye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: For clarity, that should be a. Live inside the ring road.[/p][/quote]No Madison, you showed your true colours with your original comment. By the way what was it that your 2 previous usernames got banned for?[/p][/quote]And your silence speaks volumes. And you have the audacity to call me a troll, when you have gone to extraordinary levels to make sure that your voice can be heard on here. Accept that other people do not live in your little bubble and interact with them instead of abusing them, and then you may get a bit of respect for your posts.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've quite understood something here NPE. So let me make it clear for you. You are either 1. A troll or 2. Ignorant. In either case, getting into a discussion/argument/ slanging match with you is pointless because you are either 1. A troll and just trying to get a reaction (something you admitted to on the blind man's guide dog story or 2. Ignorant and there's no point in trying to discuss anything with the ignorant. Since the post where you admitted breaking the law whilst driving (whilst frothing at the mouth over some cyclists doing similar) I have basically come to realise your opinion on any story, and of me or anything I might say, is of so little consequence, that I care more about where my toenail clippings end up. So troll away Dick, isn't that what they call PIs in the US? Dick? Troll away, I literally don't give a flying F what you say think or do.[/p][/quote]That's a wee bit strong is it not?. But if my lucid, factual, thought provoking comments can raise such a reaction, then at least some good is coming of it, even if you are yet to see the light. But there is one thing that I do not understand, yourself and GC always seem to have the most comments on any story concerning motorists and cyclo's and you seem to be trawling all other stories for comments that I have made, yet you call me a TROLL. So what does that make you?[/p][/quote]Madi50n is a strange one.....claims not to be a cyclist, but erupts into fits of abusive rage at the slightest hint of any criticism of cyclists. I guess there is a medical term for this. livid99
  • Score: -3

1:02pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 wrote:
Fantomas wrote:
IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.
Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion.
I just don't understand the mentality of those who continually spout out the tired "all cyclists are colour blind" comments whenever there is an article about improving cycling infrastructure.

Apparently, such colour blindness is not only confined to cyclists:

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/7
765332/More-than-hal
f-of-British-drivers
-colour-blind-to-red
-traffic-lights.html


Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles.

Taken from: http://www.ctc.org.u
k/sites/default/file
s/file_public/pedest
riansbrf.pdf

So the vast majority of injuries and deaths attributed red light jumping is caused by motorists. However, whenever there is a news article about improving road infrastructure for cars, I never see any 'why don't they just spend the money on teaching drivers the difference between red and green' comments from you. Why is this?

I think we all know the answer. You're a sad little troll with an inexplicable hatred of cyclists and an inability to read and understand the most simple of facts.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fantomas[/bold] wrote: IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.[/p][/quote]Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion.[/p][/quote]I just don't understand the mentality of those who continually spout out the tired "all cyclists are colour blind" comments whenever there is an article about improving cycling infrastructure. Apparently, such colour blindness is not only confined to cyclists: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/7 765332/More-than-hal f-of-British-drivers -colour-blind-to-red -traffic-lights.html Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles. Taken from: http://www.ctc.org.u k/sites/default/file s/file_public/pedest riansbrf.pdf So the vast majority of injuries and deaths attributed red light jumping is caused by motorists. However, whenever there is a news article about improving road infrastructure for cars, I never see any 'why don't they just spend the money on teaching drivers the difference between red and green' comments from you. Why is this? I think we all know the answer. You're a sad little troll with an inexplicable hatred of cyclists and an inability to read and understand the most simple of facts. grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

1:27pm Wed 23 Jul 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Fantomas wrote:
IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.
Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion.
I just don't understand the mentality of those who continually spout out the tired "all cyclists are colour blind" comments whenever there is an article about improving cycling infrastructure.

Apparently, such colour blindness is not only confined to cyclists:

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/news/uknews/7

765332/More-than-hal

f-of-British-drivers

-colour-blind-to-red

-traffic-lights.html



Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles.

Taken from: http://www.ctc.org.u

k/sites/default/file

s/file_public/pedest

riansbrf.pdf

So the vast majority of injuries and deaths attributed red light jumping is caused by motorists. However, whenever there is a news article about improving road infrastructure for cars, I never see any 'why don't they just spend the money on teaching drivers the difference between red and green' comments from you. Why is this?

I think we all know the answer. You're a sad little troll with an inexplicable hatred of cyclists and an inability to read and understand the most simple of facts.
Yawn.....
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fantomas[/bold] wrote: IQ tests and anger management sessions for motorists.[/p][/quote]Colour-blindness tests from Specsaver for cyclists to help them with their Red / Green confusion.[/p][/quote]I just don't understand the mentality of those who continually spout out the tired "all cyclists are colour blind" comments whenever there is an article about improving cycling infrastructure. Apparently, such colour blindness is not only confined to cyclists: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/7 765332/More-than-hal f-of-British-drivers -colour-blind-to-red -traffic-lights.html Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles. Taken from: http://www.ctc.org.u k/sites/default/file s/file_public/pedest riansbrf.pdf So the vast majority of injuries and deaths attributed red light jumping is caused by motorists. However, whenever there is a news article about improving road infrastructure for cars, I never see any 'why don't they just spend the money on teaching drivers the difference between red and green' comments from you. Why is this? I think we all know the answer. You're a sad little troll with an inexplicable hatred of cyclists and an inability to read and understand the most simple of facts.[/p][/quote]Yawn..... livid99
  • Score: -4

1:51pm Wed 23 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

Good comeback. You should put yourself forward for the Oxford Debating Society.
Good comeback. You should put yourself forward for the Oxford Debating Society. grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

2:12pm Wed 23 Jul 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Good comeback. You should put yourself forward for the Oxford Debating Society.
To be honest, I don't care what you think. You continue to deny that cyclists are a hazard on our roads, so I can't be bothered debating with you. Of course motorists break the rules too - I have never said they dont - but you continue to try to deflect the criticism with long boring posts full of statistics. I use my eyes, and see them regularly go right through red lights at pedestrian crossings - usually oblivious because they have their headphones in, or their phone in their hand to distract them.
Call me a troll if you like, if it makes you feel better, but if I was I would be making this stuff up - I am not, as others say the same thing.
But if denying it makes you feel more comfortable, go ahead.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Good comeback. You should put yourself forward for the Oxford Debating Society.[/p][/quote]To be honest, I don't care what you think. You continue to deny that cyclists are a hazard on our roads, so I can't be bothered debating with you. Of course motorists break the rules too - I have never said they dont - but you continue to try to deflect the criticism with long boring posts full of statistics. I use my eyes, and see them regularly go right through red lights at pedestrian crossings - usually oblivious because they have their headphones in, or their phone in their hand to distract them. Call me a troll if you like, if it makes you feel better, but if I was I would be making this stuff up - I am not, as others say the same thing. But if denying it makes you feel more comfortable, go ahead. livid99
  • Score: -4

2:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

NixLa1974 says...

I dont have a problem with the majority of cyclists but in the same way as there are ignorant morons in control of cars there are the same type of people in control of bicycles. Just because you have all day to get somewhere doesn't mean everybody does and before the normal comments of "well leave earlier then" starts I have one for you too - If you want to be healthy and 'green' then walk. At least the rest of us can get to where we need to be on time.
I dont have a problem with the majority of cyclists but in the same way as there are ignorant morons in control of cars there are the same type of people in control of bicycles. Just because you have all day to get somewhere doesn't mean everybody does and before the normal comments of "well leave earlier then" starts I have one for you too - If you want to be healthy and 'green' then walk. At least the rest of us can get to where we need to be on time. NixLa1974
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree