Drive to get more city folk on bikes (From thisisoxfordshire)

How about spending some of the money on educating cyclists on the highway code, as at the moment I doubt if they even know what it is. Also they should be made to have insurance to compensate others for all the accidents they cause.

I'm a cyclist and I totally agree with Bart, the police should come down heavily on cyclist without lights and those who cycle through red lights. When I'm driving I treat cyclists they way I would hope other drivers would treat me, give me more room and not bully me. As a driver I have nightmares driving through Oxford in the dark with unlit cyclists who have no road sense.

A new bridge across the Isis will be incredibly popular with spectators during regattas. Hopefully it'll be planned to accommodate peak loads from the start.

Botley Road Rail Bridge is a disgrace and wholesale improvement works are absolutely essential. Ideally as a jointly sponsored scheme as part of the Network Rail Oxford Station Improvement Program.

Is Mr. Cook a midget or does he own a really tall bike?

iklhik wrote:
Is Mr. Cook a midget or does he own a really tall bike?

A little of each me thinks!

Bart, I'm fascinated by your devotion to pedalling the same tired comment on every story that mentions cycling in any form whatsoever.

There are many cyclists who do follow the highway code just as there are many drivers who do not.

Many, if not most, cyclists already do have third party insurance. The fact is that cycling is such a low risk, everyday activity that it is covered by the standard liability insurance that comes with any household insurance policy.

I'm not aware of an abundance of accidents caused by cyclists, but I'm sure you have some statistics to back up your assertion.

Why do I think this is just going to be more 'planning gain' money spent on tempting cyclists onto the pavement and surfacing bits of towpath and the like that don't head where cyclists actually want to go.

'.. push people out of there cars.. ' ha ha. Push cyclists off the road more like!

Pie in the sky. New bridges would cost a fortune, and typical of a Labour run city council to come up with ideas it can't fund without raising taxes.

Try sorting out the poverty and slum housing that is rife in the city first, and maybe look at ways to cut your useless staff who can do nothing except "take instructions".

Figures for the last two years available
2009 and 2010 (totals)
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by cyclists 2
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by
cars, vans, lorries 262

It is obviously election year again. New bridges, swimming pools etc., and yet they cut basic services.

pdw___ wrote:
Bart, I'm fascinated by your devotion to pedalling the same tired comment on every story that mentions cycling in any form whatsoever.

There are many cyclists who do follow the highway code just as there are many drivers who do not.

Many, if not most, cyclists already do have third party insurance. The fact is that cycling is such a low risk, everyday activity that it is covered by the standard liability insurance that comes with any household insurance policy.

I'm not aware of an abundance of accidents caused by cyclists, but I'm sure you have some statistics to back up your assertion.

There are more instances of criminal damage by cyclists, than accidents caused by them. But when an angry cyclist rips your wing mirror off, and then cycles through the traffic and over a red light you have no chance of catching him, and as they have no identification it is a crime that can never be resolved and the criminal cyclist gets away and the motorist pays a few £hundred for a new wing mirror. Your household insurance rubbish is just that because NO cyclist is going to stop and give his details unless forcibly so, and then it will claim assault, unlawful detention (whilst you hold him waiting for the police to turn up) or just turn around and lie saying that you drove your car at him. The police sniffing a better nick will arrest the driver for any of the above and cyclo goes on to offend another day. Bart is correct in stating the obvious to anybody who drives or walks in Oxford, I have forgotten how many times I have been terrorised by cyclists hurtling down Cornmarket, and told to procreate with myself for pointing out that it is us pedestrians who are allowed to use the above St during the day after 10 am. If cyclos want to be respected and have our hard earned taxes wasted on them, then they must learn that respect is earned and not a god given right, and to give the most law breaking section of our road using community at the moment our tax money is wrong. Mr Styring, sort your own house out first, and then come back with your begging bowl. Until then I am with Bart as there is no way that you can disagree with him. P.S. The station bridge is not a problem unless you do not understand what a flashing amber light on the left hand side of a motor vehicle means. P.P.S. It would be far cheaper for the council to purchase and hand out a copy of The Highway Code to all cyclists, tell them that it applies to them, and advise them that it will improve their life expectancy if they read it, instead of throwing our money away on your hair brained schemes. But then Jimmy lad, you are a cyclo, I am a motorist, and if we ever agreed with each other, then there would be a chance for Israel and Palestine.

Usual story. A minority give cyclists a bad name but please keep them off the pavements and fine them every time like they do motorists.

"the new Community Infrastructure Levy – effectively a tax on developers"
No it's not. It's a tax on house buyers. Just like the new levy on "foreign lorry drivers" is actually a tax on English shoppers.I don't believe this country has a chance of getting out of recession unless the tax increasing mentality can be reformed into a belief in moderate and sensible taxation.It doesn't matter what the Soviet demagogues of Oxford City Council think; the fact is that that money can better be spent by the individual house purchasers whose money it is.

Is "drive" quite the right word? It's not the weather to start such a drive, anyway!

I make 100% of my journeys into Oxford by bike and would normally recommend it: it is so much faster than any other way, and takes you to exactly where you want to be as well.

But Colin: more cycle stands are desperately needed in the centre: often they are all full. I would love to see more at Carfax: I have never yet realized my dream of parking there. Cycle parking is pretty desperate at the moment, with most of the ones in Pennyfarthing Place blocked off

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"the new Community Infrastructure Levy – effectively a tax on developers"
No it's not. It's a tax on house buyers. Just like the new levy on "foreign lorry drivers" is actually a tax on English shoppers.I don't believe this country has a chance of getting out of recession unless the tax increasing mentality can be reformed into a belief in moderate and sensible taxation.It doesn't matter what the Soviet demagogues of Oxford City Council think; the fact is that that money can better be spent by the individual house purchasers whose money it is.

The price of housing and food is dictated by what the market can stand - it has very little to do with input costs anymore. The idea that any tax automatically gets added to a selling price is just fundamentalist neo-liberal bunk. Do you actually think for a moment that if, for instance, the 5% stamp duty on properties over £1 million was abolished overnight that the property prices would drop by 5% as a result? Of course they wouldn't - the seller would just pocket 5% more.

Phisher wrote:
Figures for the last two years available
2009 and 2010 (totals)
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by cyclists 2
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by
cars, vans, lorries 262

Oh! Thats OK then. Carry on cycling on the pavements.

Phisher wrote:
Figures for the last two years available
2009 and 2010 (totals)
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by cyclists 2
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by
cars, vans, lorries 262

Very much harder to kill with a bicycle I think. Perhaps you could try harder?

What's the count of the frightened and injured.

How about the good cyclists - of which there are many - telling off the bad ones of which there are also many.

Cathena wrote:
How about the good cyclists - of which there are many - telling off the bad ones of which there are also many.

I rather doubt this would work - I suspect most of the bad cyclists don't think they are doing anything wrong. They'll tell you that they only ride on the pavement very carefully or that they always check for traffic before jumping the red light. Much the same as the motorists who won't obey the 20mph limits because they think the limit is silly and they know they won't get caught.

I was once told off by a cyclist for stopping at a red light and getting in their way.

The police need to be out there nicking antisocial idiots on bikes and dangerous fools in motor vehicles. If Cllr Cook wants more of us cyclists on the road then he needs to look at how the amount of dangerous and unnecessary motor traffic can be reduced in Oxford. (Before the car worshippers start NO I'm NOT saying ALL motor traffic is dangerous and/or unnecessary.)

In the current climate why would developers give hundreds of thousands of pounds for this sort of thing? Does it mean the City council are going to try to get more money off of them or just use money given for other things like libararys and schools and spend it on cycle paths instead? If this much money can be got from developers why have they not built all of this before?

"Many, if not most, cyclists already do have third party insurance".....
.....I find that hard to believe, they don't spend money on lights, so I doubt they'll spend it on insurance.

Thinkingoutloud wrote:
In the current climate why would developers give hundreds of thousands of pounds for this sort of thing? Does it mean the City council are going to try to get more money off of them or just use money given for other things like libararys and schools and spend it on cycle paths instead? If this much money can be got from developers why have they not built all of this before?

Developers pay for this sort of thing in exchange for planning permission, same as they pay for social housing etc.

In Oxford the developer is often the University or Brooks. So as I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected) Brooks have paid for the new toucan crossing outside their student accommodation on Brasenose Driftway, a much needed crossing, so far so good. BUT now the council is creating a pavement cycling facility to link the accommodation to Brooks, and I understand they are financing this abuse of pedestrian space.

So planning gain becomes financial loss and another unwanted facility is created that will probably deter more pedestrians than it encourages cyclists. Meanwhile the road has been made more motorist friendly by a reduction in the amount of cyclists which is not going to 'push people out of cars'.

There are always reservations given when cyclists are debated here, and that is because the majority of car owners witness the cyclists abuse of the system on a regular basis, so those reservations are heavily founded.

What the OM could do is to highlight these repeated allegations to the police and firmly ask them what they intend to do about it. The main role of the police is crime prevention, but so often there is a loophole granted to cyclists who break the law, while no such forgiveness is extended to motorists.
Red light jumping, and damage to vehicles while scooting up the inside of a line of parked vehicles with the pedal in the door, or very costly doors mirrors damaged are common. On the other side of the coin , cycling in prohibited areas is not apparently policed rigorously enough, and it is very plain that the attitude of many cyclists is deplorable.
If they want their lot improved then surely that should come as a reward for better performance, and that can be gauged by fewer complaints to the police, so in the future motorists who are witness to cycling mis demeanors should report them to the police to raise their awareness and profile of the scale of what is going on, and force them to take stronger action.
Meridian news is always calling for news stories, perhaps some of you could oblige.

"The price of housing and food is dictated by what the market can stand - it has very little to do with input costs anymore. The idea that any tax automatically gets added to a selling price is just fundamentalist neo-liberal bunk. Do you actually think for a moment that if, for instance, the 5% stamp duty on properties over £1 million was abolished overnight that the property prices would drop by 5% as a result? Of course they wouldn't - the seller would just pocket 5% more."
Yes I actually did study economics at university Museli (although it was a long time ago in the glory days of those beacons of hyper-taxation, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European dominions) so, you know what? I Have a vague idea about this subject: indeed as one of our properties would sell near the 500 K mark the distortion caused by Stamp Duty Land Tax is rather close to my heart. And you are missing the point which is about tax addiction. You will need to book yourself into rehab if you're hoping both to remain in this country and have a financially comfortable old age. It's not going to happen with the levels of taxation we're bearing at the moment

museli wrote:

Thinkingoutloud wrote:
In the current climate why would developers give hundreds of thousands of pounds for this sort of thing? Does it mean the City council are going to try to get more money off of them or just use money given for other things like libararys and schools and spend it on cycle paths instead? If this much money can be got from developers why have they not built all of this before?

Developers pay for this sort of thing in exchange for planning permission, same as they pay for social housing etc.

In Oxford the developer is often the University or Brooks. So as I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected) Brooks have paid for the new toucan crossing outside their student accommodation on Brasenose Driftway, a much needed crossing, so far so good. BUT now the council is creating a pavement cycling facility to link the accommodation to Brooks, and I understand they are financing this abuse of pedestrian space.

So planning gain becomes financial loss and another unwanted facility is created that will probably deter more pedestrians than it encourages cyclists. Meanwhile the road has been made more motorist friendly by a reduction in the amount of cyclists which is not going to 'push people out of cars'.

That's really odd.

The local campaigners in that area have previously claimed that improving pavements with cycle lanes has resulted in slower traffic, greater congestion and more fumes.

Now you're saying it results in more free-flowing traffic.

Can both really be right?

If the council are successful in their attempt to get more people to cycle, how are they going to actually fund it, after all if there are less motorists, there's going to be less revenue from parking, so they'll have to make cuts elsewhere to finance the project.
Maybe I'm wrong, but, I may be proved right.

I remember Colin Cook from my time @ City Council, dear colin is full of ideas
Except Medical Condition : Arthritis-and accident victim;
and having both knees Operated, you know, it's impossible to Riding Bicyle,
And some of us don't like to advertise our problems ( accidents or illnesses)......

there are good and bad of both cyclists and motorists, and we all have to live with that. a quick example of a poor cyclist; i was driving through oxford i a coach, and passed a cyclist approaching st clements. she had lights on, fair play, but when i indicated to pull in at the stop, she cut straight up the inside of me, whilst i was pulling in. stupid!!!! i didn't pull in on her, as i knew she was there, but without lights i wouldn't have seen her!!when i originally indicated she was well behind me, but, due to the slow moving traffic, decided to chance her luck. this sort of stupidity is seem every day, and will eventually result in a death. cyclist MUST use lights, and be aware of other traffic, as other drivers must watch for cyclists. if everyone obeyed the highway code we wouldn't have so many problems

It saddens me that there continues to be an increasing levels of car dependency in the UK

We've ruined many of our town and cities by designing our towns and cities around the private motor car. Many other European towns and cities make far better use of their public spaces.

Take Berlin, walking around the parliament buildings is a joy. In London parliament square is noisy, dirty, polluted and barely accessible to pedestrians. Parliament square is an embarrassing mess when you compare it with other great European capitals.

In Oxford one of the most beautiful and historic streets is no more than an car park! Broad Street could be a huge attraction if it was not for Oxford bending over backwards to let cars continue to dominate the city.

I hope this scheme is a small step in reclaiming Oxford for people, rather than primarily for people in their cars.

I work for a local authority in the County but mainly in the City, there are good and bad cyclists like there are car drivers, I try to be considerate to all other drivers. I was hit by a cyclist recently and the young lady admitted her brakes were not very good should the bikes have a test before they are allowed on the street, and they could also make a financial contribution towards all these new wonderful schemes being put in because if they do not the money has to come from somewhere else.

Andrew:Oxford wrote:

museli wrote:

Thinkingoutloud wrote:
In the current climate why would developers give hundreds of thousands of pounds for this sort of thing? Does it mean the City council are going to try to get more money off of them or just use money given for other things like libararys and schools and spend it on cycle paths instead? If this much money can be got from developers why have they not built all of this before?

Developers pay for this sort of thing in exchange for planning permission, same as they pay for social housing etc.

In Oxford the developer is often the University or Brooks. So as I understand it (and I'm willing to be corrected) Brooks have paid for the new toucan crossing outside their student accommodation on Brasenose Driftway, a much needed crossing, so far so good. BUT now the council is creating a pavement cycling facility to link the accommodation to Brooks, and I understand they are financing this abuse of pedestrian space.

So planning gain becomes financial loss and another unwanted facility is created that will probably deter more pedestrians than it encourages cyclists. Meanwhile the road has been made more motorist friendly by a reduction in the amount of cyclists which is not going to 'push people out of cars'.

That's really odd.

The local campaigners in that area have previously claimed that improving pavements with cycle lanes has resulted in slower traffic, greater congestion and more fumes.

Now you're saying it results in more free-flowing traffic.

Can both really be right?

I didn't say anything about 'free-flowing traffic', it'll take a lot more than getting bikes off the road to achieve that round here. By motorist friendly I simply mean they can get on with causing congestion without having to make room for cyclists. I don't for a moment think they'll get anywhere any quicker.

swalker260 wrote:
I work for a local authority in the County but mainly in the City, there are good and bad cyclists like there are car drivers, I try to be considerate to all other drivers. I was hit by a cyclist recently and the young lady admitted her brakes were not very good should the bikes have a test before they are allowed on the street, and they could also make a financial contribution towards all these new wonderful schemes being put in because if they do not the money has to come from somewhere else.

Huge savings can be made by encouraging people out of cars. It's massively expensive to accommodate cars in cities. Put this four year investment next to what was spent on just one junction, such as the Hamburger roundabout, and it puts things into perspective.

Your suggestion that 'they' could make a financial contribution puzzles me. Should you pay extra to walk our streets? Everyone pays for our streets through general taxation.

Bikes and cars more or less came into being around the same time and have seemingly never lived in harmony; that's wrong. the driver/rider have never lived in harmony. The world has moved on but it seems the planners and road builders have not. Oxford is a small old city and the roads pay little part in catering for both types of vehicles to occupy space adjacent to one another. i have a bike, motorbike and car and use the bike the most to get around Oxford and surrounding areas, mainly because of the ease and time involved. Yes some cyclists are bad people who do their own thing without thinking but this applies equally to drivers of cars, don't forget this. My experiences of cycling around Oxford are that the majority of motorists have little or no sense of spatial awareness. some of the "newer" roads are quite wide so why would you drive almost in the gutter stopping a cyclist to lawfully pass by and overtake a cyclist only to take a left turn causing a cyclist to brake sharply to avoid a collision, stop in a cycle only box at traffic lights, park in road cycle painted lines causing cyclists to pull out into traffic to overtake, make 2 lanes when there is only one to avoid queuing in single file a little while longer at mini roundabouts and so on. Every day there are at least 4 incidents i note of poor driving skills directly relating to me cycling on the road and this is in less than a 4 mile journey. There are a few mentions of the highway code being aimed at cyclists but interestingly none at drivers. There are sections of this code aimed at drivers specifically mentioning how to treat cyclists. Ring a bell with anyone?

Floflo wrote:

swalker260 wrote:
I work for a local authority in the County but mainly in the City, there are good and bad cyclists like there are car drivers, I try to be considerate to all other drivers. I was hit by a cyclist recently and the young lady admitted her brakes were not very good should the bikes have a test before they are allowed on the street, and they could also make a financial contribution towards all these new wonderful schemes being put in because if they do not the money has to come from somewhere else.

Huge savings can be made by encouraging people out of cars. It's massively expensive to accommodate cars in cities. Put this four year investment next to what was spent on just one junction, such as the Hamburger roundabout, and it puts things into perspective.

Your suggestion that 'they' could make a financial contribution puzzles me. Should you pay extra to walk our streets? Everyone pays for our streets through general taxation.

I wish I could share your optimism that anything good for commuting cyclists will come out of this. Of course people should be encouraged to get out of their cars and cycle: it's healthier, cheaper, sustainable and most people can participate whereas there will only ever be room for a selfish minority to drive everywhere in a place like Oxford.

I rack my brain though to think of any examples of cycling facilities that are of any use to me in Oxford and can think of nothing since the Bypass and Marston Ferry were built several decades ago. Advanced Stop Lines are good but the lanes leading to them tend to be worse than useless. I don't think local authorities will be able to make useful cycling facilities without taking away some of the road space currently monopolised by motor vehicles which the majority seem opposed to.

If the Councils are unable to do anything genuinely useful then probably best not waste the money on token efforts.

The main fact is that we have created a society that will not work without the car (think about it).
I would like to change that as much as anybody. I hope this little exercise helps. However, all this pointless ranting from cyclist who think the whole country is going to change just because they demand it, is stupid and a waste of hot air.

xjohnx wrote:
The main fact is that we have created a society that will not work without the car (think about it).
I would like to change that as much as anybody. I hope this little exercise helps. However, all this pointless ranting from cyclist who think the whole country is going to change just because they demand it, is stupid and a waste of hot air.

That's not actually a fact - just a very short-sighted opinion. Once we had a society that depended on walking and animal transport, then one that was based on rail travel. The current car obsession is also transient.

I have no faith left, to many promises broken in the past. Before all these wonderful schemes let us get what is there right, ie the pathetic shared cycle/footpaths (shared with trees and any other obstruction) is just one example, we (cyclists) belong on the road look at other countries and learn from them. Proper law enforcement so we deserve respect from other road users is another, major, thing(sat on my trike Thursday at a red light 8 riders came by me and through it). I could rant on and on but I fear no one (in authority) will listen, ah well, while not a saint I will continue to obey the rules of the road and have drivers wonder why I am the odd one out. Seamus

There are some fairly ridiculous comments finding their way up here today. I both cycle and drive on a regular basis in Oxford and I see equally frequent poor riding and poor driving. The fact is that anything which can be done to improve provision for cyclists will be a good thing.

thehoodedclaw wrote:
There are some fairly ridiculous comments finding their way up here today. I both cycle and drive on a regular basis in Oxford and I see equally frequent poor riding and poor driving. The fact is that anything which can be done to improve provision for cyclists will be a good thing.

Do you regard giving pavement space to cyclists as a good thing? I don't from either a cyclist or a pedestrian point of view.

There appear to be a lot of people who disagree with sharing space between pedestrians & cyclists, and to a point I agree.
However, if the routes are sufficiently wide, and correctly segregated, they work fine, as they have on the Continent for years.
The problem in this Country, is that invariably the pavements aren't wide enough, there's no segregation, and when there is, some cyclists choose to ignore the rules.
I think the cycling proficiency test should be made compulsory, cyclists should have third party insurance, and cycles should have annual serviceability checks, the same as cars.
Although being hit by a car is likely to result in serious injury, or fatality, being hit by a cyclist could also result in injury, although not necessarily as serious, so similar precautions should be taken.

museli wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
The main fact is that we have created a society that will not work without the car (think about it).
I would like to change that as much as anybody. I hope this little exercise helps. However, all this pointless ranting from cyclist who think the whole country is going to change just because they demand it, is stupid and a waste of hot air.

That's not actually a fact - just a very short-sighted opinion. Once we had a society that depended on walking and animal transport, then one that was based on rail travel. The current car obsession is also transient.

What planet are you from please? Sudden removal of private car transport would, at the moment, lead to a 75%+ drop in GDP (minimum). Find me just one person to take a 75% pay cut and I will give your loony idea some credance.

Its like a bunch of Highway Code bible bashing idiots, pointing fingers at minor traffic offences, like they'll cause the end of society.

They really should do a lot more bike clearance, most of the bike stands are full of dumped bikes, not popular, but as it goes its about time for a bike MOT the safety standard on some of the commuter bikes i see is terrible.

Btw: the cycle lights at Pound land, not bad £3 with batteries.. So no excuse for no lights.

Floflo wrote:
It saddens me that there continues to be an increasing levels of car dependency in the UK

We've ruined many of our town and cities by designing our towns and cities around the private motor car. Many other European towns and cities make far better use of their public spaces.

Take Berlin, walking around the parliament buildings is a joy. In London parliament square is noisy, dirty, polluted and barely accessible to pedestrians. Parliament square is an embarrassing mess when you compare it with other great European capitals.

In Oxford one of the most beautiful and historic streets is no more than an car park! Broad Street could be a huge attraction if it was not for Oxford bending over backwards to let cars continue to dominate the city.

I hope this scheme is a small step in reclaiming Oxford for people, rather than primarily for people in their cars.

Yeah right floey, let's just fly all the deliveries into the businesses in broad st, turl st and the covered market, so that you and your lot can come and spend you £2 on a skinny latte. That will really get the economy going. The shoppers in oxford that spend real money drive in, the cyclos spend peanuts. Oxford needs cars, not bikes.

xjohnx wrote:

museli wrote:

xjohnx wrote:
The main fact is that we have created a society that will not work without the car (think about it).
I would like to change that as much as anybody. I hope this little exercise helps. However, all this pointless ranting from cyclist who think the whole country is going to change just because they demand it, is stupid and a waste of hot air.

That's not actually a fact - just a very short-sighted opinion. Once we had a society that depended on walking and animal transport, then one that was based on rail travel. The current car obsession is also transient.

What planet are you from please? Sudden removal of private car transport would, at the moment, lead to a 75%+ drop in GDP (minimum). Find me just one person to take a 75% pay cut and I will give your loony idea some credance.

I said nothing about 'sudden removal of private car transport' and I reckon you just made your 75% figure up - can you offer some sort of credible citation for this silly fiction please?

LORD PETE MCVAY. OX2 6EG wrote:

Floflo wrote:
It saddens me that there continues to be an increasing levels of car dependency in the UK

We've ruined many of our town and cities by designing our towns and cities around the private motor car. Many other European towns and cities make far better use of their public spaces.

Take Berlin, walking around the parliament buildings is a joy. In London parliament square is noisy, dirty, polluted and barely accessible to pedestrians. Parliament square is an embarrassing mess when you compare it with other great European capitals.

In Oxford one of the most beautiful and historic streets is no more than an car park! Broad Street could be a huge attraction if it was not for Oxford bending over backwards to let cars continue to dominate the city.

I hope this scheme is a small step in reclaiming Oxford for people, rather than primarily for people in their cars.

Yeah right floey, let's just fly all the deliveries into the businesses in broad st, turl st and the covered market, so that you and your lot can come and spend you £2 on a skinny latte. That will really get the economy going. The shoppers in oxford that spend real money drive in, the cyclos spend peanuts. Oxford needs cars, not bikes.

Well I've reread Floflo's post twice and I can't see where she mentions banning delivery lorrys. Have you got a point to make?

Yes Brekky. Floeys bigotry against the motorist is idiocy. If she wants to kill the economy lets have a cyclo city, without just the parking revenue, let alone the money spent by car drivers this city would be a ghost town. Before the changes in 1999 if you were not in the queue for the Weatgate Car Park by 10 am you would not get a space. During the changes it was intolerable for car drivers to get in and out of Oxford, so they went elsewhere. After the changes the few that came back found that it was £20 to park all day, and went back to their new shopping towns. As a result, George St lost nearly all of it's shops to takeaways and bars. The westgate lost Selfridges/John Lewis, and Cornmarket turned into a fast food/mobile phone street. So now we have Primark as the flagship store, and poundland in the second largest plot. That is what happens when you do not encourage car drivers, but encourage the likes of little floey. Oxford needs to decide whether it wants to be a city that attracts shoppers who spend money, or a city that attracts lawbreakers who spend very little. I go for the former, little floey goes for the latter. But to be honest as my money comes from me and the missus business in Bangkok I couldn't care less as it does not affect me. But I comment because I detest the self righteous lot on here that hate car drivers and think that they are the answer. Well you are not the answer, you are the problem, a bunch of freeloading losers.

Don't know if you've actually been there recently Macavity but Oxford centre seems to be thriving to me. If people just want to get in there car and park up next to a shop then there are plenty of retail parks about - Oxford centre isn't one of them.

"Do you regard giving pavement space to cyclists as a good thing? I don't from either a cyclist or a pedestrian point of view."
Depends whether you're talking towncentre or suburban/rural Museli. From Water Eaton P & R to within half a mile of the City Centre, the pavements are barely used most of the day by pedestrians and cyclists who insist on using the road block hundreds of people in buses. On the pavement in George Street? well, obviously not.From Enstone North and South on the A44 I'd stay on the pavement rather than the road for as long as there is a pavement, not being suicidal.

I cycle the two miles or so each way into Oxford because it is twice as fast and much more convenient than any other way of getting there, not to mention virtually free of charge.

This initiative is about making more people give cycling a try: the city would be better for it.

If everyone obeyed the law to the letter we would all be better off, no accidents or people moaning.

But, both Cyclists and Motorists break the law, me included and i do both.

@Macvay. You are clearly delusional if you think £300,000 investment in transport infrastructure over 4 years is going to bring about massive changes.

You are also wrong that towns and cities designed around people suffer economically. Copenhagen, for example, is planned so that people only drive when they have to. Private cars have their place in Copenhagen but most people choose other ways to get about. Copenhagen is also one of the most desirable places to live, the city, and its economy, is thriving.

Suggesting that public space is sometimes better reserved for the public, rather than private cars is not car hating. It's about making the best use of valuable space for anyone who wants to do business, or visit our towns.

Even as it stands in Oxford most shoppers don't drive into the centre. The roads are often full to capacity. Encouraging more people to drive is not a realistic, nor an effective way to bring more people to the city. Congested, polluted streets with little space for pedestrians offers little to entice people into a city.

It's about the right tools for the job. Out of town shopping centres are suited to a car dependant nation - but in former medieval are not.

As you are familiar with Bangkok I would have thought you know at first hand just how polluted and congested cities become when private, oil powered transport is remains largely unchecked.

For your benefit Mcvey I feel I should mention that ad hominem attacks don't have a place in reasoned debate - except to reveal the character of the person making the assumptions.

Ok Floey. Kobenhaven, is not like Oxford, for one they have decent nightlife with plenty of ladies to service the needs of us men. But if you want Oxford to follow their lead then I would be more than happy, but would you?

I won't jump on the usual bandwagon of slagging cyclists off etc. One thing I have noticed though is the complete lack of secure cycle storage in Oxford. Cowley Road barely has any bike racks - they're typically a few posts randomly dotted along the road, st clements is the same. To my knowledge Headington has none. The city centre has a few but they're over-subscribed, usually with abandoned bikes. Why can't they invest in some larger covered bike storage areas, centrally located in each major area of Oxford. Use CCTV and good lighting to monitor these areas and have soome kind of system to mointor the amount of time a bike is left - bit like putting a pound in for a trolley at a supermarket. Instead you'd get a tag for your bike to give you XX hours of parking. Once the time is up you put the tag back and get your money back. If you leave your bike there longer the council holds the right to remove the bike. The CCTV would cut down on thefts and vandalism and in turn that should free up police time in dealing with petty bike crime. Everyone is a winner surely?!

xjohnx wrote:

Phisher wrote:
Figures for the last two years available
2009 and 2010 (totals)
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by cyclists 2
Pedestrians killed ON the PAVEMENT by
cars, vans, lorries 262

Oh! Thats OK then. Carry on cycling on the pavements.

Why is Oxford dropping kerbs to help increase these shocking stats, BTW?

I am old enough to remember when there were no dropped kerbs. They started to arrive after the first Disability Act, I think, and of course that is a good thing.

Unfortunately cyclists make use of them too. There may not be many people killed by people cycling on pavements, but there are an awful lot scared witless by people whizzing past them unexpectedly.

SNJ wrote:
I am old enough to remember when there were no dropped kerbs. They started to arrive after the first Disability Act, I think, and of course that is a good thing.

Unfortunately cyclists make use of them too. There may not be many people killed by people cycling on pavements, but there are an awful lot scared witless by people whizzing past them unexpectedly.

Yes SNJ, but cyclos are above the law. The dropped kerbs in their mind just makes it easier to cycle on the pavements.

Im a bus driver in Oxford, I also like to ride my bike at the weekends.

My view is that not all cyclists break the law. Some actually let me pull out in my bus from the bus stop not wizz round the rear of me on to the other side of the road where i cant see them....

Agree bikes should have a kind of mot. Some of the state of the bikes they ride.. One bloke was actually riding his with no tyres on....

Car drivers are just as worse in the city. They dont look both ways when pulling out of a side road or doing uturns. If everyone respected every other road user yes that includes bikes there wouldnt be a problem.

I'd love to cycle to work. I either need a house near where I work or a job near my house, plus an affordable nursery en route so that I can get from home to work via nursery within an acceptable time frame (currently the journey takes 2.5 hours each way via public transport compared to just over 1 hour in rush hour traffic by car, but I'd be glad if it were a twenty minute bike ride). I suppose I could quit work, stop paying taxes and see whether I'm entitled to spend your money instead, but it really doesn't appeal.

JPOX28 wrote:
Im a bus driver in Oxford, I also like to ride my bike at the weekends.

My view is that not all cyclists break the law. Some actually let me pull out in my bus from the bus stop not wizz round the rear of me on to the other side of the road where i cant see them....

Agree bikes should have a kind of mot. Some of the state of the bikes they ride.. One bloke was actually riding his with no tyres on....

Car drivers are just as worse in the city. They dont look both ways when pulling out of a side road or doing uturns. If everyone respected every other road user yes that includes bikes there wouldnt be a problem.

I read that post and thought that it was a wind up by a four year old, but the realised it was written by a bus driver.

LORD PETE MCVAY. OX2 6EG wrote:

JPOX28 wrote:
Im a bus driver in Oxford, I also like to ride my bike at the weekends.

My view is that not all cyclists break the law. Some actually let me pull out in my bus from the bus stop not wizz round the rear of me on to the other side of the road where i cant see them....

Agree bikes should have a kind of mot. Some of the state of the bikes they ride.. One bloke was actually riding his with no tyres on....

Car drivers are just as worse in the city. They dont look both ways when pulling out of a side road or doing uturns. If everyone respected every other road user yes that includes bikes there wouldnt be a problem.

I read that post and thought that it was a wind up by a four year old, but the realised it was written by a bus driver.

Statistics show in the city that accidents between busses and cyclists are half of what they are between a car and cyclist.

Thought i would point that out before you go on the bandwagon and try and make out its the bus drivers fault.

JPOX28 wrote:

LORD PETE MCVAY. OX2 6EG wrote:

JPOX28 wrote:
Im a bus driver in Oxford, I also like to ride my bike at the weekends.

My view is that not all cyclists break the law. Some actually let me pull out in my bus from the bus stop not wizz round the rear of me on to the other side of the road where i cant see them....

Agree bikes should have a kind of mot. Some of the state of the bikes they ride.. One bloke was actually riding his with no tyres on....

Car drivers are just as worse in the city. They dont look both ways when pulling out of a side road or doing uturns. If everyone respected every other road user yes that includes bikes there wouldnt be a problem.

I read that post and thought that it was a wind up by a four year old, but the realised it was written by a bus driver.

Statistics show in the city that accidents between busses and cyclists are half of what they are between a car and cyclist.

Thought i would point that out before you go on the bandwagon and try and make out its the bus drivers fault.

but seeing that there are 3 thousand more cars than buses on the road that shows that buses are 20 more times likely to kill or maim than a car driver. P.S. Have you realised that the highway code as changed since bus drivers started to be so dangerous. Before it said "you MUST let buses pull out" now it says "if it is safe and you are able to do so you SHOULD let buses pull out" So putting on your flashy amber light and forcing a passing car to hit an oncoming vehicle does NOT let you off any more. Note this because it is never safe for me to let a bus out, and my last insurance claim backed it up. Keep driving your bus please I need my compo to keep coming.

I didnt say force my way out. You shouldnt expect to be let out what ever you drive. I was on about statistics in the city centre not the country where there is more busses, delivery lorrys than cars.

I try and let cars pull out when its safe to do so ( highway code says i dont have to). If everyone drove to the speed limits, signalled properly, keep there vehicles mantained (bikes inc) , check there mirrors. There would hardly ever be a problem.