Cyclists want end to cars on bike lane

Cyclists want end to cars on bike lane

Cyclists want end to cars on bike lane Buy this photo

First published in News

CYCLISTS have backed a councillor’s call for double yellow lines to be painted along the length of Donnington Bridge Road in Oxford.

Drivers parking their cars in the cycle lane between Donnington Bridge and Iffley Road are rendering it useless, they say.

Cyclists have a segregated cycle lane on the bridge, but then have to navigate a line of vehicles on the road.

City and county councillor John Tanner, who cycles along the road regularly, said he will contact council officers about the idea.

Cyclist Cecilia Fry, an accountant who lives in Stanley Road, East Oxford, backed the call for double yellow lines.

Ms Fry, who regularly cycles along Donnington Bridge Road, said: “There is a problem with parked cars there very often.

“You have this beautiful segregated lane on the bridge but after that people are parking their cars.

“There is a lack of continuity.”

She said: “Double yellow lines would solve the problem if they were enforced.”

For Mr Tanner it would be the completion of the campaign he started when he first became a city councillor 20 years ago, which saw the cycle lanes created on the bridge.

He said: “I get a lot of complaints about cars parking in the cycle lane.

“As soon as they get over the bridge going north, you hit parked cars.

“I am going to press the county council to consult people who live on the road about putting in double yellow lines.

“It is going to be controversial but I think it is the right thing to do. Roads are for cars and bikes, not for people to park in.”

Simon Hunt, chairman of Oxford cycling campaign group Cyclox, also backed double yellow lines.

He said: “The parked cars deflect cyclists into the main stream of the carriageway. Any line of parked cars is potentially a hazard because of the ‘car-dooring’ effect, the worry that someone is going to spring open their door on you.”

County council spokesman Paul Smith said officers would consider the idea when they were approached by Mr Tanner.

  • Our top stories

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:12pm Fri 29 Aug 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

“It is going to be controversial but I think it is the right thing to do. Roads are for cars and bikes, not for people to park in.”
And where do you suggest cars are parked??? Are you suggesting that no cars are parked on roads? What a stupid and typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back.
“It is going to be controversial but I think it is the right thing to do. Roads are for cars and bikes, not for people to park in.” And where do you suggest cars are parked??? Are you suggesting that no cars are parked on roads? What a stupid and typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -20

7:02pm Fri 29 Aug 14

remberingthe80s says...

Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers
Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers remberingthe80s
  • Score: -12

8:39pm Fri 29 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

remberingthe80s wrote:
Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers
I remember when I was unable to construct sentences. When I was four.
[quote][p][bold]remberingthe80s[/bold] wrote: Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers[/p][/quote]I remember when I was unable to construct sentences. When I was four. grandconjuration
  • Score: 23

9:01pm Fri 29 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
“It is going to be controversial but I think it is the right thing to do. Roads are for cars and bikes, not for people to park in.”
And where do you suggest cars are parked??? Are you suggesting that no cars are parked on roads? What a stupid and typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back.
I'm surprised that one of OM's most eminent anti-cycling trolls would not welcome functional cycle lanes. Such lanes get these pesky cyclists off the road and out of your way!

Seriously, "...typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back", what exactly do you mean by that? What do you expect cyclists to 'give back' exactly? What do motorists 'give back'.

I can only assume that you are referring to taxes. However, I presume you're aware that each motorist is subsidised by £600 from the taxpayer (look it up, do some reading). Taxes raised through motoring do not cover all costs attributed to the road network, there is a large shortfall that has to be recovered from general taxation.

This means that cyclists are not only reducing traffic congestion, reducing NHS costs and reducing pollution, they are also subsidising motorists.

On the subject of parking, I don't understand why we allow the dumping of private property (cars) on our roads. If I was to block a road or pavement with a sofa or washing machine then I would expect to be prosecuted for fly tipping. But, blocking a highway with a car and causing danger to pedestrians and cyclists seems perfectly acceptable! Why is this?

There are too many cars cluttering our towns and cities. It's about time car ownership was dependant on being able to provide off-road parking on you own property. Nowhere to park your car? Don't have a car then.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: “It is going to be controversial but I think it is the right thing to do. Roads are for cars and bikes, not for people to park in.” And where do you suggest cars are parked??? Are you suggesting that no cars are parked on roads? What a stupid and typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back.[/p][/quote]I'm surprised that one of OM's most eminent anti-cycling trolls would not welcome functional cycle lanes. Such lanes get these pesky cyclists off the road and out of your way! Seriously, "...typical statement from selfish cyclists. They want everything but are not prepared to give anything back", what exactly do you mean by that? What do you expect cyclists to 'give back' exactly? What do motorists 'give back'. I can only assume that you are referring to taxes. However, I presume you're aware that each motorist is subsidised by £600 from the taxpayer (look it up, do some reading). Taxes raised through motoring do not cover all costs attributed to the road network, there is a large shortfall that has to be recovered from general taxation. This means that cyclists are not only reducing traffic congestion, reducing NHS costs and reducing pollution, they are also subsidising motorists. On the subject of parking, I don't understand why we allow the dumping of private property (cars) on our roads. If I was to block a road or pavement with a sofa or washing machine then I would expect to be prosecuted for fly tipping. But, blocking a highway with a car and causing danger to pedestrians and cyclists seems perfectly acceptable! Why is this? There are too many cars cluttering our towns and cities. It's about time car ownership was dependant on being able to provide off-road parking on you own property. Nowhere to park your car? Don't have a car then. grandconjuration
  • Score: 20

1:35am Sat 30 Aug 14

Myron Blatz says...

Homer, for a change you got it right - too many radio-active hamburgers? The only way to stop vehicles cluttering-up the roads for other road users (especially buses) is to ban on-street parking where homes have gardens or driveways, and restricted residential parking where hey don't - and double-red lines should cover bus routes, to stop everything except police, fire and ambulance parking. Maybe draconian, but it's parked vehicles and not cycle lanes or cyclists which are he problem - especially in urban and suburban Oxford. They should also stop vehicles with 'disabled bage holder' shoved in the window feom parking on double-yellows for more than 20 minutes, and not allowed to return for an hour - instead of like now, where some people ignore yellows by moving their car a few feet and then then parking for another three hours, like opposite Wetherspoons at Cowley Centre!
Homer, for a change you got it right - too many radio-active hamburgers? The only way to stop vehicles cluttering-up the roads for other road users (especially buses) is to ban on-street parking where homes have gardens or driveways, and restricted residential parking where hey don't - and double-red lines should cover bus routes, to stop everything except police, fire and ambulance parking. Maybe draconian, but it's parked vehicles and not cycle lanes or cyclists which are he problem - especially in urban and suburban Oxford. They should also stop vehicles with 'disabled bage holder' shoved in the window feom parking on double-yellows for more than 20 minutes, and not allowed to return for an hour - instead of like now, where some people ignore yellows by moving their car a few feet and then then parking for another three hours, like opposite Wetherspoons at Cowley Centre! Myron Blatz
  • Score: 7

7:29am Sat 30 Aug 14

suffolkthree says...

Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City.
i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured!
Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City. i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured! suffolkthree
  • Score: -6

9:21am Sat 30 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

suffolkthree wrote:
Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City.
i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured!
The use of cycle paths by cyclists is not compulsory (read the Highway Code).

Cyclists are legitimate road users; they have a right to use the road. Motorists are only allowed to use public roads under license.

Road tax does not exist, it was abolished by Winston Churchill in 1937. Your car is taxed. Roads are funded through general taxation and motorists are subsidised (see comment above).

There is no requirement for cyclists to be insured because they rarely cause any damage, and any damage they do cause is likely to be minor. Even so, many cyclists are insured. This insurance is very inexpensive because cyclists cause very little damage.

Insurance of motor vehicles is compulsory because there is a much greater probability of them causing damage and the level of damage is much more significant. This is why a whole industry of insurance exists for drivers.
[quote][p][bold]suffolkthree[/bold] wrote: Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City. i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured![/p][/quote]The use of cycle paths by cyclists is not compulsory (read the Highway Code). Cyclists are legitimate road users; they have a right to use the road. Motorists are only allowed to use public roads under license. Road tax does not exist, it was abolished by Winston Churchill in 1937. Your car is taxed. Roads are funded through general taxation and motorists are subsidised (see comment above). There is no requirement for cyclists to be insured because they rarely cause any damage, and any damage they do cause is likely to be minor. Even so, many cyclists are insured. This insurance is very inexpensive because cyclists cause very little damage. Insurance of motor vehicles is compulsory because there is a much greater probability of them causing damage and the level of damage is much more significant. This is why a whole industry of insurance exists for drivers. grandconjuration
  • Score: 24

10:08am Sat 30 Aug 14

West Oxon Webwatcher says...

50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day.
40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use.
50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day. 40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use. West Oxon Webwatcher
  • Score: 7

10:10am Sat 30 Aug 14

King Joke says...

remberingthe80s wrote:
Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers
So what about cyclists who are local?

This situation is ridiculous. A half mile stretch of cycle lane, which could benefit hundreds of cyclists a day, is blocked off by queuing traffic and 5-6 parked cars. A ratio of 1:100 is blatantly unbalanced and priority should be given the other way. There are plenty of side streets to park in.
[quote][p][bold]remberingthe80s[/bold] wrote: Get a life Donnington bridge rd was and should be for roads for local people now for students or day trippers[/p][/quote]So what about cyclists who are local? This situation is ridiculous. A half mile stretch of cycle lane, which could benefit hundreds of cyclists a day, is blocked off by queuing traffic and 5-6 parked cars. A ratio of 1:100 is blatantly unbalanced and priority should be given the other way. There are plenty of side streets to park in. King Joke
  • Score: 20

10:12am Sat 30 Aug 14

Dastroll says...

suffolkthree wrote:
Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City.
i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured!
Your idea for road tax shouldn't be for cyclists, let us expand this concept onto other road users who, at this moment in time, do not pay road tax. This could include car drivers, motorcyclists and lorry drivers. All the money raised could be used specifically for road improvements.

Contrary to popular belief there is no Road Tax in this country nor has there been since 1937.
[quote][p][bold]suffolkthree[/bold] wrote: Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City. i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured![/p][/quote]Your idea for road tax shouldn't be for cyclists, let us expand this concept onto other road users who, at this moment in time, do not pay road tax. This could include car drivers, motorcyclists and lorry drivers. All the money raised could be used specifically for road improvements. Contrary to popular belief there is no Road Tax in this country nor has there been since 1937. Dastroll
  • Score: 7

10:13am Sat 30 Aug 14

Floflo says...

suffolkthree wrote:
Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City.
i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured!
I'd recommend that faster cyclists avoid this 'cycle path' and leave it to pedestrians. It's actually a relatively narrow foot path with some paint in the middle of it.

If you cannot understand why a cyclist will choose not to use a poor quality cycle path that's okay - but please don't use your ignorance as an excuse to buzz past bikes on the road leaving no room for your maneuver.
[quote][p][bold]suffolkthree[/bold] wrote: Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City. i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured![/p][/quote]I'd recommend that faster cyclists avoid this 'cycle path' and leave it to pedestrians. It's actually a relatively narrow foot path with some paint in the middle of it. If you cannot understand why a cyclist will choose not to use a poor quality cycle path that's okay - but please don't use your ignorance as an excuse to buzz past bikes on the road leaving no room for your maneuver. Floflo
  • Score: 11

12:13pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Ceeps60 says...

Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two).
PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition).
Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two). PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition). Ceeps60
  • Score: -19

12:23pm Sat 30 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

Ceeps60 wrote:
Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two).
PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition).
Please explain how cyclists "don't pay a bean" to use roads. Before you do, read the comments above so you don't make more of an idiot of yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Ceeps60[/bold] wrote: Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two). PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition).[/p][/quote]Please explain how cyclists "don't pay a bean" to use roads. Before you do, read the comments above so you don't make more of an idiot of yourself. grandconjuration
  • Score: 15

3:50pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Richard of Wantage says...

suffolkthree wrote:
Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City.
i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured!
Its not a cycle path it's a pavement and cyclists are not allowed on pavements.
[quote][p][bold]suffolkthree[/bold] wrote: Cyclists do not use cycle paths specifically created for them anyway outside the City. i.e. The A415 Abingdon to Berinsfield road. They prefer to disrupt the legitimate road users who pay road tax and are insured![/p][/quote]Its not a cycle path it's a pavement and cyclists are not allowed on pavements. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 11

4:08pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Floflo says...

Ceeps60 wrote:
Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two).
PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition).
You should dust off your bike and try to use cycle paths to get around town. If you do you'll find it abundantly clear that cyclists have very little input into the design of our streets. You'll also quickly realise why many people choose to avoid using cycle paths.

And the roads are not yours! If it upsets you that you can't drive along pavements I suggest you walk..
[quote][p][bold]Ceeps60[/bold] wrote: Please stop cyclists dictating what we should do with our roads when they don't pay a bean to be on them! If I can't drive in their space when I need to please stop them driving in mine (B4017 & B4044 to name but two). PS I object to being referred to as a troll for simply speaking my mind following the cycling fraternity starting the argument & upsetting people* thereby they themselves being the trolls (*Wikipedia definition).[/p][/quote]You should dust off your bike and try to use cycle paths to get around town. If you do you'll find it abundantly clear that cyclists have very little input into the design of our streets. You'll also quickly realise why many people choose to avoid using cycle paths. And the roads are not yours! If it upsets you that you can't drive along pavements I suggest you walk.. Floflo
  • Score: 7

6:20pm Sat 30 Aug 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Cyclists are very selfish, if they don't get what they want everytime they moan. Very little is put in their way and they still whinge. Where as motorists are always being persecuted. If it wasn't for motorists paying the excessive car park charges and the vat on fuel, income tax and council tax would go up.
Cyclists are very selfish, if they don't get what they want everytime they moan. Very little is put in their way and they still whinge. Where as motorists are always being persecuted. If it wasn't for motorists paying the excessive car park charges and the vat on fuel, income tax and council tax would go up. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -15

7:31pm Sat 30 Aug 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

West Oxon Webwatcher wrote:
50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day.
40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use.
The council garages are absolutely hopeless.

They were designed back in the olden days when a Morris Minor was considered a large family car. Many cars are now too wide or too tall to fit in through the door. Even if they fit - it's almost impossible to actually get out of the car.

Reversing out of a drive onto a busy road with cycle lane would be a touch hair-raising too.
[quote][p][bold]West Oxon Webwatcher[/bold] wrote: 50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day. 40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use.[/p][/quote]The council garages are absolutely hopeless. They were designed back in the olden days when a Morris Minor was considered a large family car. Many cars are now too wide or too tall to fit in through the door. Even if they fit - it's almost impossible to actually get out of the car. Reversing out of a drive onto a busy road with cycle lane would be a touch hair-raising too. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 3

8:39pm Sat 30 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Cyclists are very selfish, if they don't get what they want everytime they moan. Very little is put in their way and they still whinge. Where as motorists are always being persecuted. If it wasn't for motorists paying the excessive car park charges and the vat on fuel, income tax and council tax would go up.
"Cyclists are very selfish"

What? For wanting to use a cycle lane?

"Motorists are always being persecuted"

Utter tosh. They get away with murder, sometimes quite literally.

"If it wasn't for motorists...income tax and council tax would go up"

Please provide us with your maths.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Cyclists are very selfish, if they don't get what they want everytime they moan. Very little is put in their way and they still whinge. Where as motorists are always being persecuted. If it wasn't for motorists paying the excessive car park charges and the vat on fuel, income tax and council tax would go up.[/p][/quote]"Cyclists are very selfish" What? For wanting to use a cycle lane? "Motorists are always being persecuted" Utter tosh. They get away with murder, sometimes quite literally. "If it wasn't for motorists...income tax and council tax would go up" Please provide us with your maths. grandconjuration
  • Score: 15

9:43am Sun 31 Aug 14

King Joke says...

Andrew:Oxford wrote:
West Oxon Webwatcher wrote:
50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day.
40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use.
The council garages are absolutely hopeless.

They were designed back in the olden days when a Morris Minor was considered a large family car. Many cars are now too wide or too tall to fit in through the door. Even if they fit - it's almost impossible to actually get out of the car.

Reversing out of a drive onto a busy road with cycle lane would be a touch hair-raising too.
Reverse into the garage then! It's much safer as you get a much clearer view driving out of it.
[quote][p][bold]Andrew:Oxford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]West Oxon Webwatcher[/bold] wrote: 50 years ago when I first bought a car I lived in a home on a terrace with no off-street parking. I did not buy my car until I had got the tenancy of a garage about 10 minutes walk from home. In those days cars, admittedly much fewer, were not parked on the highway overnight or for long periods in the day. 40 years ago when Jericho was being gentrified by the City Council, the council built blocks of lock-up garages to rent to residents of the area. However residents would not pay the rent when they could park on the street outside or close to home as they did not want the few minutes walk to a lock-up garage and preferred to have their car outside their home. I believe these garages have no been demolished through lack of use.[/p][/quote]The council garages are absolutely hopeless. They were designed back in the olden days when a Morris Minor was considered a large family car. Many cars are now too wide or too tall to fit in through the door. Even if they fit - it's almost impossible to actually get out of the car. Reversing out of a drive onto a busy road with cycle lane would be a touch hair-raising too.[/p][/quote]Reverse into the garage then! It's much safer as you get a much clearer view driving out of it. King Joke
  • Score: 5

12:12pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Bakerboy1980 says...

So when will cyclists be banned from roads? Causing traffic because of how slow they are. Causing cars to overtake on the wrong side of the road. Small minority park in this area so get over it
So when will cyclists be banned from roads? Causing traffic because of how slow they are. Causing cars to overtake on the wrong side of the road. Small minority park in this area so get over it Bakerboy1980
  • Score: -15

2:46pm Sun 31 Aug 14

grandconjuration says...

Bakerboy1980 wrote:
So when will cyclists be banned from roads? Causing traffic because of how slow they are. Causing cars to overtake on the wrong side of the road. Small minority park in this area so get over it
You're not the sharpest tool in the box. My goldfish could probably put together a better argument.

"So when will cyclists be banned from the roads?"

Probably never.

"Causing traffic because of how slow they are."

How do cyclists 'cause traffic'? Traffic is defined as 'vehicles moving on a public highway' (Oxford English Dictionary). I assume you're claiming that cyclists cause traffic congestion. However, this is quite clearly not the case, the vast majority of congestion is caused by motor vehicles. The 3 leading causes of traffic congestion are (1) too many motor vehicles being on the road at the same time (2) collisions between motor vehicles (3) road works.

Since cyclists reduce the number of cars on the road they reduce traffic congestion. Especially when cycle lanes are not blocked by selfish motorists!

"Causing traffic to overtake on the wrong side of the road."

On a single carriageway, that's exactly where you should be when you overtake. Look at Highway Code Rule 163; there's even a little picture for the illiterate and terminally thick.
[quote][p][bold]Bakerboy1980[/bold] wrote: So when will cyclists be banned from roads? Causing traffic because of how slow they are. Causing cars to overtake on the wrong side of the road. Small minority park in this area so get over it[/p][/quote]You're not the sharpest tool in the box. My goldfish could probably put together a better argument. "So when will cyclists be banned from the roads?" Probably never. "Causing traffic because of how slow they are." How do cyclists 'cause traffic'? Traffic is defined as 'vehicles moving on a public highway' (Oxford English Dictionary). I assume you're claiming that cyclists cause traffic congestion. However, this is quite clearly not the case, the vast majority of congestion is caused by motor vehicles. The 3 leading causes of traffic congestion are (1) too many motor vehicles being on the road at the same time (2) collisions between motor vehicles (3) road works. Since cyclists reduce the number of cars on the road they reduce traffic congestion. Especially when cycle lanes are not blocked by selfish motorists! "Causing traffic to overtake on the wrong side of the road." On a single carriageway, that's exactly where you should be when you overtake. Look at Highway Code Rule 163; there's even a little picture for the illiterate and terminally thick. grandconjuration
  • Score: 16

9:02pm Sun 31 Aug 14

frewen98 says...

The pavement on Donnington bridge is wide enough for both pedestrians and cycles in separate lanes . The current cycle lane could then be used for car parking . At each end of the bridge , cyclists can follow the side roads to avoid conflict with traffic on the main rd . Problem solved
The pavement on Donnington bridge is wide enough for both pedestrians and cycles in separate lanes . The current cycle lane could then be used for car parking . At each end of the bridge , cyclists can follow the side roads to avoid conflict with traffic on the main rd . Problem solved frewen98
  • Score: -6

10:40pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Richard of Wantage says...

frewen98 wrote:
The pavement on Donnington bridge is wide enough for both pedestrians and cycles in separate lanes . The current cycle lane could then be used for car parking . At each end of the bridge , cyclists can follow the side roads to avoid conflict with traffic on the main rd . Problem solved
Pavements are for pedestrians! Roads are for moving vehicles, ie cars, buses, cycles etc. Simple. Roads and pavements are not for parking cars. It's the vehicle's owners responsibility not everybody else. I have a small car and I never have a problem overtaking cycles unlike Chelsea tractors!
[quote][p][bold]frewen98[/bold] wrote: The pavement on Donnington bridge is wide enough for both pedestrians and cycles in separate lanes . The current cycle lane could then be used for car parking . At each end of the bridge , cyclists can follow the side roads to avoid conflict with traffic on the main rd . Problem solved[/p][/quote]Pavements are for pedestrians! Roads are for moving vehicles, ie cars, buses, cycles etc. Simple. Roads and pavements are not for parking cars. It's the vehicle's owners responsibility not everybody else. I have a small car and I never have a problem overtaking cycles unlike Chelsea tractors! Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 5

12:25am Mon 1 Sep 14

davidrnewman says...

The problem isn't on the bridge, it is on the Donnington Bridge Road to the east, where are few parked cars force cyclists out of the cycle lane into the main road, so slowing down mortorized traffic.

So both cyclists and motor cars suffer from a handful of parked cars.

If we cannot have double yellow lines, then a 30 min. waiting limit would reduce the problem.
The problem isn't on the bridge, it is on the Donnington Bridge Road to the east, where are few parked cars force cyclists out of the cycle lane into the main road, so slowing down mortorized traffic. So both cyclists and motor cars suffer from a handful of parked cars. If we cannot have double yellow lines, then a 30 min. waiting limit would reduce the problem. davidrnewman
  • Score: 2

8:13pm Mon 1 Sep 14

John Lamb says...

Reversing onto a busy road (with or without a cycle lane) is illegal and stupid.
Reversing onto a busy road (with or without a cycle lane) is illegal and stupid. John Lamb
  • Score: 6

10:49am Tue 2 Sep 14

andy1975 says...

The trolls are out in force I see.

Cyclists not give anything back? You're having a laugh aren't you? Every cyclist is one less car on the road. That in itself benefits society enormously.
The trolls are out in force I see. Cyclists not give anything back? You're having a laugh aren't you? Every cyclist is one less car on the road. That in itself benefits society enormously. andy1975
  • Score: 13

12:14am Wed 3 Sep 14

calfox3 says...

Every so often the cycle lobby will moan about a junction that is dangerous or a road that is unsafe.
Most of the time it is down to the poor skills of the cyclist using them.
having cycled for a number or years I found that most of the problems are down to the attitudes of the majority of cyclists using a loose knowledge of the highway code against drivers yet not following it themselves.
for example cyclists will tell you that they are allowed to ride side by side.
however this is what the highway code actually says

" never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends"

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82
section 66-3

This is how the majority of cyclists operate.
however looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way)
that there may not be anything wrong with parking here.

Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

The key sentence here
" Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable"

Cyclist hide behind the highway code without knowing it.
This is the problem.
Every so often the cycle lobby will moan about a junction that is dangerous or a road that is unsafe. Most of the time it is down to the poor skills of the cyclist using them. having cycled for a number or years I found that most of the problems are down to the attitudes of the majority of cyclists using a loose knowledge of the highway code against drivers yet not following it themselves. for example cyclists will tell you that they are allowed to ride side by side. however this is what the highway code actually says " never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 section 66-3 This is how the majority of cyclists operate. however looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way) that there may not be anything wrong with parking here. Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 The key sentence here " Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" Cyclist hide behind the highway code without knowing it. This is the problem. calfox3
  • Score: -1

11:54am Wed 3 Sep 14

andy1975 says...

I think a large part of the reason why people cycle badly is because cyclists have never been properly provided for. Our roads are designed purely for cars with the odd poorly designed cycle path thrown in as an afterthought. This situation where they are not catered for encourages cyclists to adopt an agressive mentality. The evidence is pretty clear if you look at countries where cyclists are provided for. Guess what. In Holland and Denmark people cycle more sensibly.
I think a large part of the reason why people cycle badly is because cyclists have never been properly provided for. Our roads are designed purely for cars with the odd poorly designed cycle path thrown in as an afterthought. This situation where they are not catered for encourages cyclists to adopt an agressive mentality. The evidence is pretty clear if you look at countries where cyclists are provided for. Guess what. In Holland and Denmark people cycle more sensibly. andy1975
  • Score: 4

12:50pm Wed 3 Sep 14

grandconjuration says...

calfox3 wrote:
Every so often the cycle lobby will moan about a junction that is dangerous or a road that is unsafe. Most of the time it is down to the poor skills of the cyclist using them. having cycled for a number or years I found that most of the problems are down to the attitudes of the majority of cyclists using a loose knowledge of the highway code against drivers yet not following it themselves. for example cyclists will tell you that they are allowed to ride side by side. however this is what the highway code actually says " never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 section 66-3 This is how the majority of cyclists operate. however looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way) that there may not be anything wrong with parking here. Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 The key sentence here " Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" Cyclist hide behind the highway code without knowing it. This is the problem.
calfox3 says "looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way) that there may not be anything wrong with parking here"

There isn't. Read the article. The first line says...

"Cyclists have backed a councillor’s call for double yellow lines to be painted along the length of Donnington Bridge Road in Oxford"

No one has claimed that the parking is illegal. They want to make it illegal.

I don't understand what relevance your 'riding two-abreast' example has with respect to this news article. You claim that the majority of cyclists have a "loose knowledge of the Highway Code". If you yourself read the HC a little more throuroughly, you will find that it is only advised that cyclists should ride more than two abreast and are advised to ride in single file under a rather woolly set of conditions. There is no law. Maybe these cyclists you speak of have a less loose grasp of Highway Code than you do.

Interestingly, the HC does state:

Rule 242. You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road.
Laws RTA 1988, sect 22 & CUR reg 103

Surely the blockage of a cycle lane is both dangerous and an unecessary obstruction.
[quote][p][bold]calfox3[/bold] wrote: Every so often the cycle lobby will moan about a junction that is dangerous or a road that is unsafe. Most of the time it is down to the poor skills of the cyclist using them. having cycled for a number or years I found that most of the problems are down to the attitudes of the majority of cyclists using a loose knowledge of the highway code against drivers yet not following it themselves. for example cyclists will tell you that they are allowed to ride side by side. however this is what the highway code actually says " never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 section 66-3 This is how the majority of cyclists operate. however looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way) that there may not be anything wrong with parking here. Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 The key sentence here " Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable" Cyclist hide behind the highway code without knowing it. This is the problem.[/p][/quote]calfox3 says "looking at the photo with this article (its been a while since I was last down that way) that there may not be anything wrong with parking here" There isn't. Read the article. The first line says... "Cyclists have backed a councillor’s call for double yellow lines to be painted along the length of Donnington Bridge Road in Oxford" No one has claimed that the parking is illegal. They want to make it illegal. I don't understand what relevance your 'riding two-abreast' example has with respect to this news article. You claim that the majority of cyclists have a "loose knowledge of the Highway Code". If you yourself read the HC a little more throuroughly, you will find that it is only advised that cyclists should ride more than two abreast and are advised to ride in single file under a rather woolly set of conditions. There is no law. Maybe these cyclists you speak of have a less loose grasp of Highway Code than you do. Interestingly, the HC does state: Rule 242. You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road. Laws RTA 1988, sect 22 & CUR reg 103 Surely the blockage of a cycle lane is both dangerous and an unecessary obstruction. grandconjuration
  • Score: 4

3:07pm Wed 3 Sep 14

calfox3 says...

my point dear is that cyclist are quick to use the highway code against driver but do not follow it themselves.
As for rule 242 the difference is that the "blockage of a cycle lane"
is different to the blockage of a road.
blocking a lane still allows traffic (be it a car or cyclist) to flow.
where as the blockage of a road will stop the traffic flow.
as a cyclist my self I do not think this is a dangerous obstruction.
as it can easily be dealt with by simply taking a glance over your shoulder and a good strong indication to other road users.
a good cyclist will ride with the thought of self preservation and not the
"Its my right of way" mentality.


To quote the highway code.

You should

Keep both hands on the handlebars except when signaling or changing gear.

Keep both feet on the pedals.

Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

Not ride close behind another vehicle

Not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain.

Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82


I can not see the word "advised" in that anywhere.
although reading your comment they would have to cycle more than two abreast.

However the example of riding two abreast was to show how cyclists use the Highway code against driver yet do not follow it themselves.

I will say that if you do with to disagree with me then that is fair enough.
but lets be adult about this and leave out the petty personal attacks on other people shall we.
my point dear is that cyclist are quick to use the highway code against driver but do not follow it themselves. As for rule 242 the difference is that the "blockage of a cycle lane" is different to the blockage of a road. blocking a lane still allows traffic (be it a car or cyclist) to flow. where as the blockage of a road will stop the traffic flow. as a cyclist my self I do not think this is a dangerous obstruction. as it can easily be dealt with by simply taking a glance over your shoulder and a good strong indication to other road users. a good cyclist will ride with the thought of self preservation and not the "Its my right of way" mentality. To quote the highway code. You should Keep both hands on the handlebars except when signaling or changing gear. Keep both feet on the pedals. Never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends Not ride close behind another vehicle Not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain. Be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted. https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 I can not see the word "advised" in that anywhere. although reading your comment they would have to cycle more than two abreast. However the example of riding two abreast was to show how cyclists use the Highway code against driver yet do not follow it themselves. I will say that if you do with to disagree with me then that is fair enough. but lets be adult about this and leave out the petty personal attacks on other people shall we. calfox3
  • Score: -4

3:59pm Wed 3 Sep 14

grandconjuration says...

Where's the personal attack, my dear?

Instructions saying "you should" in the Highway Code are not laws, they are advisory. Failure to comply with them will not lead to a prosecution. However, failure to comply could be used as evidence in court proceedings to establish liability.

Instructions saying "YOU MUST" are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing an offence.

This is all explained in the introduction of the Highway Code.

Why we are over 30 comments arguing about parking in a cycle lane is beyond me. A cycle lane should be for cycles, a footpath should be for feet and a motorway is for motors. The sooner legislation makes this clear the better
Where's the personal attack, my dear? Instructions saying "you should" in the Highway Code are not laws, they are advisory. Failure to comply with them will not lead to a prosecution. However, failure to comply could be used as evidence in court proceedings to establish liability. Instructions saying "YOU MUST" are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing an offence. This is all explained in the introduction of the Highway Code. Why we are over 30 comments arguing about parking in a cycle lane is beyond me. A cycle lane should be for cycles, a footpath should be for feet and a motorway is for motors. The sooner legislation makes this clear the better grandconjuration
  • Score: 5

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