Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: CTCREP on June 18, 2020, 04:44:24 PM
-
Social distancing and the result of cleaner air, the result of diminished car use, has highlighted the benefits of walking and cycling. Cycling UK has a web based tool https://www.cyclinguk.org/covid-19-safe-space-social-distancing#WMP (https://www.cyclinguk.org/covid-19-safe-space-social-distancing#WMP) where people can point up the problems in their area.
Please take a look at the tool as it is beginning to show many of the problems with the roads and paths in Stockport that should be considered by our Council.
Please do what you can for our environment.
-
First - can I say i have been a cyclist all my life. Passed my cycling proficiency test at junior school many years ago and have cycled ever since, but I must say that to be honest the problems with the roads and paths in Stockport are caused by cyclists rather than cars. The standard of cycling in many cases is dreadful and totally unsafe and a danger to other road users and pedestrians. Walking down Middlewood Way is now unsafe due to the reckless speed of quite a few of the cyclists who use it and I would not be surprised if a serious accident was caused by them. I sometimes think that one of these no win no pay solicitors should advertise there as I am sure it is only a matter of time before a cyclist is sued for an accident that they have caused.
-
rather than cars
To be fair, if you are only cycling up and down the Middlewood Way you aren't going to encounter many problems with cars are you?
It is evidently clear that the cycle network need improving for the safety of all road users. As Marple residents we should be supporting and contributing to projects that help improve the area and not using it as an excuse to jump on your soapbox.
-
To be fair, if you are only cycling up and down the Middlewood Way you aren't going to encounter many problems with cars are you?
It is evidently clear that the cycle network need improving for the safety of all road users. As Marple residents we should be supporting and contributing to projects that help improve the area and not using it as an excuse to jump on your soapbox.
This forum needs a like button!
-
Even walking on the canal is now dangerous occupation due to about 25% of the cyclists using it."I have rang my bell, so move".
On the roads, car drivers need to be educated on how to overtake cyclists properly (cyclists do not need 10 foot to the right of them).
-
Even walking on the canal is now dangerous occupation due to about 25% of the cyclists using it."I have rang my bell, so move".
On the roads, car drivers need to be educated on how to overtake cyclists properly (cyclists do not need 10 foot to the right of them).
All bikes should have bells .they used to have when i was young .
-
The vast majority of drivers obey the rules and many are considerate towards other drivers, unlike cyclists who seem to think the rules do not apply to them.
Driving up Bowden Lane the other day the two young cyclists did move once they heard me behind them, one to the pavement on the left, the other to the pavement on the right !
The cyclist coming towards me had his hands in his pockets !!!!!!
-
Even walking on the canal is now dangerous occupation due to about 25% of the cyclists using it."I have rang my bell, so move".
Speaking as a walker and a cyclist, there seems to be a big gap in knowledge that pedestrians have priority on towpaths, not cyclists. It's especially important given the often limited space.
On the roads, car drivers need to be educated on how to overtake cyclists properly (cyclists do not need 10 foot to the right of them).
Speaking as a driver and a cyclist, I appreciate drivers giving lots of space when passing, so I try to give plenty of space when passing cyclists myself.
And when there isn't enough space as a cyclist, I do my best to make sure I take up more space on the road to try and ensure drivers don't pass me unsafely. As I did on Town Street last Saturday when there was no space due to parked cars. So you can appreciate I was not happy when one driver decided they would try to squeeze through the remaining gap because they simply couldn't wait the 10 seconds it would take for me to clear the area. There was just enough room that I didn't get knocked off my bike thankfully, but it is clear some drivers have no concept of how to pass cyclists safely, and a handful just don't care.
-
All bikes should have bells .they used to have when i was young .
Funnily enough it was the law for bikes to be supplied with a bell. And then in 2011 the Tories decided to have a "bonfire of red tape" and guess what one of the rules they got rid of was...
-
The vast majority of drivers obey the rules and many are considerate towards other drivers, unlike cyclists who seem to think the rules do not apply to them.
Driving up Bowden Lane the other day the two young cyclists did move once they heard me behind them, one to the pavement on the left, the other to the pavement on the right !
The cyclist coming towards me had his hands in his pockets !!!!!!
Let me correct that for you.
The vast majority of road users - of all kinds - obey the rules.
A minority of road users - of all kinds - do not.
Yes there are idiots. But if you go out and study it properly, you will find most road users follow the rules.
And incidentally, on a minor residential road, why do you assume a car should have priority?
-
When I first posted the details of a system whereby everyone could easily provide details of areas where Social Distancing requirements were difficult to achieve - for example the bollarded area on Stockport Road near the junction with Hollins Lane - and the areas where improvements could benefit those willing cycle or walk to reduce their car use, I should have realised a certain number of people would ignore the potential benefits to the area as whole. It is unfortunate that a Cycling Organisation has had to bring issue to the fore, but then Britain is 50 years behind Europe when thinking beyond the motorist.
Marple is unable to reach its full potential largely because of the amount of traffic that is allowed to take precedence. Reduced vehicle use has created cleaner air, and suddenly walking and cycling have become viable propositions. Marple Centre should be a place that people want to visit and pass the time of day, not somewhere to park the car then wait ages to cross the road before getting out again as quick as possible
Please take a look at the tool https://www.widenmypath.com/suggest/#11/53.4093/-2.0874 (https://www.widenmypath.com/suggest/#11/53.4093/-2.0874) as it is beginning to show many of the problems with the roads and paths in Stockport that should be considered by our Council, so that Marple and the surrounding area could become a more pleasant and attractive place to live.
-
As a returning cyclist after a break of over forty years I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the quiet roads during lockdown on which to get confident on the roads again. Re the point about bells. Both our bikes have bells and we always make a point of ringing them on approaching pedestrians on off road paths. We ring them to let people know we are there, not to expect them to jump out of our way. We always thank people when they move aside to let us through. We have frequently stopped cycling in order to let pedestrians pass when the towpath is too narrow. I would prefer all bikes to have bells. We were walking along the Sett Valley Trail the other day and were often startled by the bikes that came silently up behind us. These bikes didn't have bells. (Some towpaths are too narrow and we have stopped cycling on them)
-
As usual a topic on safer cycling turns into an opportunity to trash-talk people trying to get around by not driving. I’ve been cycling on the towpath for 15 years and it’s always a pleasant experience for everyone involved, lots of smiles, hellos, thank yous to the bell - which as Deniseredmini rightly points out is a “someone behind you” alert not an “immediately get out of my way!” A tiny minority of people just like to be offended whatever you do.
Anyway the point I want to make is that if you’re not happy about cycling on shared (yes, SHARED) paths or on the roads, then join us. Campaign for actual cycle infrastructure that gives people a specific space to cycle for the journeys they need to make. Then we won’t “get in your way” and you might get wherever you’re going in your car that much quicker. Win-win, without the whinging.
The vast majority of drivers obey the rules and many are considerate towards other drivers, unlike cyclists who seem to think the rules do not apply to them.
Driving up Bowden Lane the other day the two young cyclists did move once they heard me behind them, one to the pavement on the left, the other to the pavement on the right !
Quite frankly one of the most absurd posts I’ve ever seen on here, and that’s saying something. There’s not enough time in the world for my to list every misdemeanour by some drivers on here, though the bad ones are entirely, entirely the reason why roads like Strines are an absolute “nope” for me and the towpath it has to be. For the sake of me actually returning home to my loved ones alive. To be polite, if you expect people on bikes (a better term than “cyclists” as if we’re all avid obsessives physically attached to our mode of transport) to get out of your way, your driving style must be an absolute “shambles.”
-
I've long since lost count of the number of cyclists who ride at the side of the road until they hear a car coming, at which point they move to the middle of the road to block the car. This is on roads where there is plenty of room for both, but they clearly want to annoy the driver. Similarly for cyclists who appear to resent and harass pedestrians and think only they are entitled to be there; exactly the attitude they say that car drivers have.
As a car driver and a pedestrian, I can't say that when a pedestrian I ever have any problem with cars (but I do with bikes).
Until all road users realise that all of them (including car drivers) are entitled to be on the road or path, then each group is going to be antagonistic to the others and that is not helpful.
-
As a car driver and a pedestrian, I can't say that when a pedestrian I ever have any problem with cars (but I do with bikes).
I would say you're very fortunate then. It was in the last week when I arrived at a road junction (Albion Road/Buxton Road in New Mills) on my bike just as the lights were just turning red. I stopped. 20 seconds later a car hurtled past me at break neck speed.
And it was it's only about three months ago that I was stood at a crossing as a pedestrian, green man came on, I was about to step out and a car suddenly zoomed through despite the lights being on red. If I hadn't noticed I would have been hospitalised, without a doubt. Thankfully there were no pedestrians around.
We should be thankful that most road users obey the rules and are courteous towards each other. But there's a small minority who aren't. Such as the absolute pillocks who have been belting down Hibbert Lane (for one example) recently. There was a car last night I saw came down about 50, before abruptly breaking as the driver caught up with another car.
And that's the thing. Bike and a pedestrian hit each other, that's going to hurt. But you stand a good chance of getting up again and going on your way. Car hits a pedestrian at 30mph, there's a hospital job. Much faster and the pedestrian's got a good chance of ending up in a coffin.
-
I've long since lost count of the number of cyclists who ride at the side of the road until they hear a car coming, at which point they move to the middle of the road to block the car. This is on roads where there is plenty of room for both, but they clearly want to annoy the driver.
No, most cyclist who want to do this simply don't want to die
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane
see stuff like this as to see WHY it's important (note, entirely justifiable language is used)
https://twitter.com/cyclinggrump/status/1275911321041715203
If you really think a bike is blocking you to upset you then you must have a very high opinion of yourself. I don't want to hold people up, but I do want to get home and if that means someone has to slow down momentarily then I'm ok with that, my safety is worth more than your time
-
I did some rejigging of my text before posting, but managed to leave a sentance in the wrong place. "Thankfully there were no pedestrians around" belonged with the first paragraph, thus...
I would say you're very fortunate then. It was in the last week when I arrived at a road junction (Albion Road/Buxton Road in New Mills) on my bike just as the lights were just turning red. I stopped. 20 seconds later a car hurtled past me at break neck speed. Thankfully there were no pedestrians around.
And it was it's only about three months ago that I was stood at a crossing as a pedestrian, green man came on, I was about to step out and a car suddenly zoomed through despite the lights being on red. If I hadn't noticed I would have been hospitalised, without a doubt.
We should be thankful that most road users obey the rules and are courteous towards each other. But there's a small minority who aren't. Such as the absolute pillocks who have been belting down Hibbert Lane (for one example) recently. There was a car last night I saw came down about 50, before abruptly breaking as the driver caught up with another car.
And that's the thing. Bike and a pedestrian hit each other, that's going to hurt. But you stand a good chance of getting up again and going on your way. Car hits a pedestrian at 30mph, there's a hospital job. Much faster and the pedestrian's got a good chance of ending up in a coffin.
-
No, most cyclist who want to do this simply don't want to die
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane
see stuff like this as to see WHY it's important (note, entirely justifiable language is used)
https://twitter.com/cyclinggrump/status/1275911321041715203
If you really think a bike is blocking you to upset you then you must have a very high opinion of yourself. I don't want to hold people up, but I do want to get home and if that means someone has to slow down momentarily then I'm ok with that, my safety is worth more than your time
When I am driving along and am moving out to give cyclists more that adequate room, I do not like them deliberately moving into my way. Given the vast space I leave them, they can only be being deliberately awkward. I was a cyclist myself for many years and always moved to the kerb to let drivers past. I don't necessarily expect them to do that these days, but I do not expect the extremely bad behaviour seen today. The contrast with horse riders is very noticeable. When I give them the same room (and slow down, as for cyclists) , I get a wave of thanks; not wilful obstruction. I have no more wish to hit a cyclist (or a horse) any more than they want to be hit.
I can only hope for some prosecutions of cyclists for lack of consideration for other road users. Obviously, if there are any drivers who do not drive with consideration for cyclists, then the same applies to them.
-
In response to rsh’s comments;
My Oxford English dictionary defines a ‘Cyclist’ as - ‘a rider of a bicycle’.
The two young cyclists did move once they heard me behind them, one to the pavement on the left, the other to the pavement on the right !
Highway code Rule 112
The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence.
Highway code (Cyclists) Rule 67
You should
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
•
As for the cyclist coming towards me had his hands in his pockets !!!!!!
Highway code Rule 66
You should
• keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
Yes, there are bad male & female, car & van drivers. This I see regularly. An example is when I drive down station Road towards the traffic lights. Vehicles come steaming round the parked cars on the right up MY side of the road expecting me to give way.
If you are short of some bedtime reading try:-
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
-
I always hesitate to reply to these threads, similar to brexit it seems to polarise people beyond any rational debate.
I'm a driver - I drive a lot for work, I spend a lot of time on the road and see some truly terrible driving. Every other person is on their phone, eating or generally ignoring the speed limit. Dan Bank is a prime example, the stack of traffic going down in the morning sees people staring at their phones and very few drivers do less than 35/40mph coming up.
interestingly having just spent quite a bit of cash on a car, I'll no longer pay any 'road tax' (i know that was abolished in the 30's)
Some drivers are great, courteous and sensible. Many are not. Many can be sensible one day and terrible the next.
When in the office I cycle. This trip is either a bike ride to Stockport and a train to London, then cycle across London. I also do a day a week in Horwich, the other side of Bolton, which is a 50 mile round trip. By bike.
I also live near the Middlewood Way. so see some terrible cycling, mainly be teenagers who haven't been taught how to ride on a road, or are carried away messing with their mates. On my ride through Manchester I also see people Cycling in a way I wouldn't - using pavements, turning left on red etc.
I've put the passage above to give some context to my thoughts. Hopefully you'll think i'm qualified to give my opinion based on by experience as someone who uses a bike as a form of transport rather than a recreational thing.
I think this thread was started to explore thoughts on cycling infrastructure. On my travels i get to see a lot, and Stockport has some of the best and worst. Around Marple we have virtually non existent infrastructure and it is a problem. It is a problem for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.
If you build good, segregated cycle lanes then it removes bikes from the carriageway. It also removes cars from the carriageway as it enables short journeys to be done by bike. Not all of them, not everyone, not all year round, but even a handful would be a big improvement. This will require a cultural change, it has happened in other countries so is possible with some effort.
Cycle infrastructure won't solve the problems by themselves. We need a proper program of training delivered through schools to encourage better cycling, potentially backed up by enforcement.
Around here Salford has some great cycle lanes, Manchester has one down Oxford Road that is brilliant. This has meant that the flow of busses can increase. There have been recent planned improvements in Stockport, nothing for Marple which is disappointing. My focus for Marple wouldn't be to improve commuter routes to Stockport but rather improve the provision within Marple so children can get to schools, the pool by bike and people can pop to the shops easier. Compared to roads, cycling infrastructure is quite cheap. We could easily do something like Poynton, or the 'mini hollands' planned in Manchester. It would be a real step forward.
I'll also make a point about road positioning, i'll not quote select parts of the highway code but provide an example which may help those who don't cycle. Coming out of Marple to Stockport you reach a blind corner near Offerton. I always take 'primary position' on this corner. This means i'm in the centre of the lane and no cars can pass me. This is the point of me taking this position. It isn't an accident, or to frustrate you. It is to stop you overtaking me on a blind bend. The consequences of which for me could be fatal.
Which leads me to my final point. Cars do cause many more crashes and deaths than cyclists. Having had several near misses or close passes it can be very scary. I've spent hours on motorways crawling past horrific crashes - it isn't nice.
So, if you have reached this point, please - practice some tolerance with each other. Let's not get angry, aggressive - it isn't worth it.
Andy
-
Well said Andy. Agree 100%
-
There is a good article on the BBC web site https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-53143359/want-to-start-cycling-to-work-here-s-how (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-53143359/want-to-start-cycling-to-work-here-s-how) giving advice to would be cyclists and it also gives reasons why cyclists do certain things at certain times.
-
I've been giving this some further thought, which I have captured in an image below - I'm sure there will be some issues, but I've prioritised Children, Pedestrians and cycling over car movements and reallocated some public space away from car use to seating and shopping.
Lots of LAs have recently secured central government funding for these initiatives and I think that making Marple pedestrian friendly would be a massive step in the right direction!
(https://i.ibb.co/pLfPcmH/Marple-Cycle.png) (https://ibb.co/BCyPb1h)
I'll also point people towards the 'walk ride marple' facebook group. If this is your thing and you are on Facebook, join the group.
-
Regarding Ludworth Primary. It would be good to have some kind of traffic calming measures along the front on Lower Fold. Also lollipop person like we used to have many years ago. I'm not entirely sure about a bridge as the exit to the park would be behind the council depot. Could be quite dark on a winter's evening. People would also have to walk up a path through the field area and in winter that could be quite tricky underfoot as it is quite steep at the school side.
-
Like I have said before I have been a cyclist for many years and still am but I entirely disagree with the current vogue of motorist bad, cyclists good. Like it or not without the motorist and yes - cars the country would be in a dreadful state. It's time to accept that cars are needed and yes they bring in immense amount of money to the public purse both national and local.
-
I've been giving this some further thought, which I have captured in an image below - I'm sure there will be some issues, but I've prioritised Children, Pedestrians and cycling over car movements and reallocated some public space away from car use to seating and shopping.
I really hope that if anything like this is seriously proposed, there will be public consultation and an opportunity to object.
-
Absolutely, there has to be input from everyone and a proper democratic process. It would be more productive to contribute to the debate than outright refuse any changes - it would give you a chance to explain why you don't want safer walking routes to local primary schools.
When you see some of the improvements in other parts of Greater Manchester you do get the sense that we are being left out.
As someone who today tipped over 50K miles on a car approaching its 3rd birthday I'm certainly a driver, make no mistake. There is an issue that does need to be addressed though, we can't fit any more cars on our roads. Fossil fuels are bad for short journeys and replacing petrol cars with electric ones still doesn't resolve the traffic issue. What do we do?
I'm sure there were similar discussions when Market Street was pedestrianised and the 'new road' was put in by the swimming baths. Now none of us can imagine it any other way.
Andy
-
I really hope that if anything like this is seriously proposed, there will be public consultation and an opportunity to object.
Totally agree with Condate. Whilst a plan to prioritise the pedestrian and cyclist is valid, without wider mitigation to deal with the impact to motorists this would turn stockport road into a carpark. Air quality would take a massive dive as cars would be continually queuing, stopping and starting. Stop penalising the motorist based on utopean ideals of safety and reduced traffic.
Stephen is correct...
Like I have said before I have been a cyclist for many years and still am but I entirely disagree with the current vogue of motorist bad, cyclists good. Like it or not without the motorist and yes - cars the country would be in a dreadful state. It's time to accept that cars are needed and yes they bring in immense amount of money to the public purse both national and local.
-
nobody is saying that we should get rid of all cars - as you say, they're necessary for a lot of reasons. We're just saying that where it's practical to do so, and people want to do so, we should make it safer and easier for people to travel by means other than cars. It means there's less traffic on the roads for those who still need (or just want) to use cars, which means it's safer for EVERYONE
-
nobody is saying that we should get rid of all cars - as you say, they're necessary for a lot of reasons. We're just saying that where it's practical to do so, and people want to do so, we should make it safer and easier for people to travel by means other than cars. It means there's less traffic on the roads for those who still need (or just want) to use cars, which means it's safer for EVERYONE
You've hit the nail on the head there NBT, "where it's practical to do so" ..... the practicalities of Andy's proposal are non-existent in terms of wider mitigation for the impact they'd have on motorists. Every proposed initiative seems to use "less cars on the road" as it's single justification but this reduction would be so minute when measured against the impact such propsals would have on motorists as to cause utter chaos.
Poynton is lovely, it's also confusing and has impacted traffic to the extent that they're soon to get a bypass. Where are the plans for a Marple bypass? .... surely not, build another road, that's a terrible idea!
-
nobody is saying that we should get rid of all cars - as you say, they're necessary for a lot of reasons. We're just saying that where it's practical to do so, and people want to do so, we should make it safer and easier for people to travel by means other than cars. It means there's less traffic on the roads for those who still need (or just want) to use cars, which means it's safer for EVERYONE
According to Transport for Greater Manchester a third of all car journeys are under 1km.
https://twitter.com/OfficialTfGM/status/1277527691919491074?s=19
That's a THIRD of all car journeys that could be done by a ten minute walk or a 5 minute cycle ride.
This is the opportunity. We can take a significant amount of traffic off our roads ridiculously easily. We just need to get out of our cars.
-
My 'proposal' was crafted in 10 minutes, to answer a specific question.
I'm yet to see any counter proposals other than maintain the status quo, which isn't tenable. As Andrew points out a third of journeys could be easily replaced if people felt safer walking and cycling. As far as I'm concerned Stockport road is already a car park - it is when I use it.
So, for those who dislike the suggestions I proposed - what do you think should be done?
-
According to Transport for Greater Manchester a third of all car journeys are under 1km.
https://twitter.com/OfficialTfGM/status/1277527691919491074?s=19
That's a THIRD of all car journeys that could be done by a ten minute walk or a 5 minute cycle ride.
This is the opportunity. We can take a significant amount of traffic off our roads ridiculously easily. We just need to get out of our cars.
the statistic is cleverley worded, one third of all journey's under 1km are made by car. Not that a third of all car journeys could be done by walking...
So the statistic gives very little indication of how many journeys that actually is nor does it bear any relation to how many car journeys could be replaced by walking or cycling. For all we know this might only represent a tiny fraction of all car journeys.
-
and TfGM in stating that
"One third of all journeys under 1km in Greater Manchester are made by car – that’s about a 5-minute bike ride or a 10-minute walk! "
means that two thirds of all journeys under 1km are NOT made by car, so actually more people are walking or cycling for shorter journeys already
-
Yeah yeah quibble quibble over stats, miss the point as you go...
I'll quote Chris Boardman directly from a Sustrans/TfGM report. Page 2.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/media/5950/bikelife19_greater-manchester_web.pdf
"around 200 million journeys made by car in Greater Manchester every year are less than one kilometre"
Shall we repeat that?
"around 200 million journeys made by car in Greater Manchester every year are less than one kilometre"
Right there, right now there are 200 million car journeys that could be reduced. Half a million a day.
This is how you start making change. You cut away at those 200 million car journeys. Then you look at the journeys that are 2km or less. Then 3km or less.
And you make change.
Or you just sit there, quibble about how stats are presented, and nothing ever happens.
-
If anyone would like more data, there's a shed load of it in this document.
https://assets.ctfassets.net/nv7y93idf4jq/3OOAkf1PSgQGUqiseGcOoI/09e308f5cb7e0013674e79ee7a74fa1c/04._GM_2040_TS_Evidence_base_-_Published_Feb_2017.pdf
It's 172 pages so no I haven't read it all. But here's some that caught my eye.
* 2.1billion Journeys per year are made by Greater Manchester residents; approximately 5.7million Journeys per day
* 40% are made by car by the driver - so 0.84billion car journeys. 18.6% are a car journey made by a passenger.
* Almost half of trips made by Greater Manchester residents are fewer than 2km in length.
* 67% of trips up to 1 km are made on foot and 30% by car
You'll never make car journeys zero. It's impossible. But you can change some. The opportunity is there. The opportunity is huge in itself.
-
Yeah yeah quibble quibble over stats, miss the point as you go...
Merely bringing clarification to a headline quote that could have been misinterpretted
I haven't missed the point but still stand by an earlier quote by Stephen...
Like it or not without the motorist and yes - cars the country would be in a dreadful state. It's time to accept that cars are needed and yes they bring in immense amount of money to the public purse both national and local.
-
Merely bringing clarification to a headline quote that could have been misinterpretted
I haven't missed the point but still stand by an earlier quote by Stephen...
Like it or not without the motorist and yes - cars the country would be in a dreadful state. It's time to accept that cars are needed and yes they bring in immense amount of money to the public purse both national and local.
And has anyone said otherwise?
-
That's a really important clarification, 200 million car journeys of less than 1km.
Now we have cleared that up, do you have any positive counter proposals?
This is what is happening in Levenshulme https://levenshulmebeenetwork.co.uk/ (https://levenshulmebeenetwork.co.uk/)
-
The only journeys I have made in the last few year of less than 0.6214 miles were when my wife was unable to walk more than a few yards (or drive herself) before she had her hip replacement. While I don't suggest similar such journeys make up most of the short trips in the area, they certainly make up a fair proportion. I'm not sure I actually believe the figures recorded for short drives (unless moving the car a few feet while positioning it in a driveway or car park counts as a journey).
Personally, I'd rather walk short distances than drive, as do most people. The average of my last 100 drives is 25.04 miles, which is typical, and a large proportion are not practical to make any other way; certainly not by either current, or any remotely likely public transport.
As a frequent pedestrian in Marple and elsewhere , I don't want or need any changes.
-
So getting back to the origami subject, the Government is providing money to encourage more walking and cycling but the final decision on how the money is used is with Stockport MBC whose reputation for catering for walking and cycling is practically non- existent if not disastrous at times, and this money must not be wasted as has done before.
A typical example that most of us must have been aware of was to spend thousands of pounds and cause several weeks of disruption - particularly for car drivers - was in creating a shared walking and cycling path along one side of Millgate and New Bridge Lane in Stockport and a substandard cycle lane on the other which actually is a deterrent to cyclists. All that was required was a cycle lane on each side created to Government specifications.
It has long been known that cycling in an urban area is the fastest form of transport. You will have read that there are cycle lanes on Oxford Road in Manchester, and I suspect most experienced commuting cyclists were looking forward to cycle lanes on the A6, but I believe Stockport Transport Department has decided to use the money to create a devious parallel route via various side roads so as not to interfere with the motor traffic. This means those commuting by bike already will find their journey now taking twice as long and will give up cycling into Manchester and take to the car. So much for encouraging cycling and walking.
So how do we get our Council Officials to do something useful for the Borough.
-
The only journeys I have made in the last few year of less than 0.6214 miles were when my wife was unable to walk more than a few yards (or drive herself) before she had her hip replacement. While I don't suggest similar such journeys make up most of the short trips in the area, they certainly make up a fair proportion. I'm not sure I actually believe the figures recorded for short drives (unless moving the car a few feet while positioning it in a driveway or car park counts as a journey).
Personally, I'd rather walk short distances than drive, as do most people. The average of my last 100 drives is 25.04 miles, which is typical, and a large proportion are not practical to make any other way; certainly not by either current, or any remotely likely public transport.
As a frequent pedestrian in Marple and elsewhere , I don't want or need any changes.
then this isn't aimed at you, so stop trying to oppose it. Help us allow opther people to change
-
@nbt - my thoughts exactly!
@CTCREP I'm approaching this from the position of Cycling is a viable alternative means of transport within Marple and between Marple and Stockport rather than a recreational cyclist.
I'd like there to be better access from Marple to Stockport, the new bridge on the Alan Newton way will make a big improvement. To link things up I would prioritise...
Remove the barrier at the bottom of Marple Hall Drive/Marina to allow better access to the Marple Hall section of the Route 55. https://goo.gl/maps/A9NU2KCbku6mic6CA (https://goo.gl/maps/A9NU2KCbku6mic6CA) Continue this through the field that brings it to the Hare and Hounds/Wyevale and change the stile for a Cycle / Horse barrier.
Remove the awful barrier that is at Chadkirk that means you have to lift your bike over (impossible with a cargo bike etc) https://goo.gl/maps/ay6S319PJQPJwcnT6 (https://goo.gl/maps/ay6S319PJQPJwcnT6) - Google has an old image - i'd be happy with what is shown!
Create signage so people know a relatively traffic free route can take them to the perimeter of Stockport.
Within Marple I would like a longer term plan to revitalise the district centre, I have put some thoughts below. (of which there are objections but no counter proposals) There are numerous more ideas from other local authorities, many in London, but also York and Bristol are notable. This would divert through traffic around Marple and allow people to move more freely within the town centre. I'd also seek to put a 20mph zone over all of Marple, restrict traffic outside of schools and create zebra crossings on the way to and from local primary schools.
-
All true Andy, but having spent nearly 20 years attending Stockport MBC's Cycle User Group and getting practically nowhere I finally gave up about 3 years ago, but I did attend a meeting about a year ago when we were given the opportunity to see what Stockport MBC were proposing. It was proudly introduced by the Councillor representing cycling who promptly left the meeting once the inspection began. I could see nothing thing was proposed for the Marple area although the Connect2 Route from Marple to Stockport via Chadkirk was still awaiting completion and I have been trying for much of these 20 years to get Rollins Lane - part of the route from Compstall to Marple Station - properly surfaced so that people could walk or cycle to Marple Station etc. Britain is 50 years behind many parts of Europe and Stockport even further behind.
I don't know how we get Stockport MBC to move into the 20th century, let alone the 21st, but even if we survive this Covid crisis we still have the Climate Change problems and the recent noticeable reduction in emissions show just how much could be done by making it possible to make many of those journeys that have been done by car equally possible by cycle or on foot.
-
All true Andy, but having spent nearly 20 years attending Stockport MBC's Cycle User Group and getting practically nowhere I finally gave up about 3 years ago, but I did attend a meeting about a year ago when we were given the opportunity to see what Stockport MBC were proposing. It was proudly introduced by the Councillor representing cycling who promptly left the meeting once the inspection began. I could see nothing thing was proposed for the Marple area although the Connect2 Route from Marple to Stockport via Chadkirk was still awaiting completion and I have been trying for much of these 20 years to get Rollins Lane - part of the route from Compstall to Marple Station - properly surfaced so that people could walk or cycle to Marple Station etc. Britain is 50 years behind many parts of Europe and Stockport even further behind.
I don't know how we get Stockport MBC to move into the 20th century, let alone the 21st, but even if we survive this Covid crisis we still have the Climate Change problems and the recent noticeable reduction in emissions show just how much could be done by making it possible to make many of those journeys that have been done by car equally possible by cycle or on foot.
How many more times its a private road .
-
How many more times its a private road .
and how may mnore time do you have to be told. it doesn't matter what it currently is. Stockport spent a QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS to buy houses on the junction of Windlehurst Road and the A6 just to knock them down and make a wider lane. They could buy Rollins Lane for less than that. They could come to an agreement with the current owner. They could use accessbility laws to force the current owner to make changes. There are many options. What make you so vehemently oposed to the idea of making things better for anyone other than yourself?
-
and how may mnore time do you have to be told. it doesn't matter what it currently is. Stockport spent a QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS to buy houses on the junction of Windlehurst Road and the A6 just to knock them down and make a wider lane. They could buy Rollins Lane for less than that. They could come to an agreement with the current owner. They could use accessbility laws to force the current owner to make changes. There are many options. What make you so vehemently oposed to the idea of making things better for anyone other than yourself?
It not making things better for me its you that wants it for yourself there is nothing wrong with the lane as it is its perfectly usable .
-
It not making things better for me
noe one's going to to force you to use the lane so that's fine
its you that wants it for yourself
I'm happy with the lane, I have used it regularly for the last ten years on my commnute.
there is nothing wrong with the lane as it is its perfectly usable .
Even using it regularly, I can recognise that the state of it is not great for a lot of people therefore I support efforts to improve it. you on the other hand seem to have a very negative attitude to this and to most other suggestions that are made on this forum. Perhaps you should take some time out and have a think about how your posts on here are contributing to the forum and wider how your actions and attitude are affecting society in general. I'm fairly lukcu in that I'm reasonably healght, have a job and a good wage, and I'm happy to pay my tax to support society and support efforts outside of that to make things better for people less fortunate than myself. Maybe you need to think about how you can do that too
-
.... I'm fairly lukcu in that I'm reasonably healght....
Mmmmmm, remind me what the NBT handle stands for J ?
;D ;D ;D ;D
PS Wrapped amazon up in one.
8)
RH.
-
@nbt - my thoughts exactly!
@CTCREP This would divert through traffic around Marple and allow people to move more freely within the town centre.
I'd love to see Marple made more cycle & pedestrian friendly but I'm curious as to where and how the through traffic would be diverted from Marple without major road building?
-
and how may mnore time do you have to be told. it doesn't matter what it currently is. Stockport spent a QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS to buy houses on the junction of Windlehurst Road and the A6 just to knock them down and make a wider lane. They could buy Rollins Lane for less than that. They could come to an agreement with the current owner. They could use accessbility laws to force the current owner to make changes. There are many options. What make you so vehemently oposed to the idea of making things better for anyone other than yourself?
If I recall correctly the compulorsy purchase for the Windlehurst junction which I personally think is a complete waste of space and money as well as being dangerous for cyclists; the funds actually came from government because it was part of the mitigation (goodness knows what was being mitigated) as part of the bypass. Those same funds and mitigation gave us our roller-coaster speed tables and humps on Windlehurst too.
Maybe Windlehurst should be a way to take through traffic out of Marple?
-
Really good points Jim, (long post alert!)
The first thing to say is that the improvements to cycling and walking infrastructure would be mitigation in themselves. If we can take some cars off the road then it would really help.
Then, and I am no expert, we need to establish what types of journeys are made through Marple. I’d suggest there are those within the town. People from Rose Hill or Hawk Green popping to the district centre. Those from within Marple travelling to somewhere else, Stockport, New Mills etc. and those journeys that start outside of Marple and end outside of Marple but travel through Marple. Each would need a different strategy.
Those journeys that start and finish in Marple could be reduced with better local infrastructure. We could start with schools – persuading people to walk or cycle with dedicated lanes and zebra crossings and dissuading them by closing roads at certain times and civil enforcement of existing traffic measures. These routes could then link the new pool, park and so on.
For those journeys that travel through Marple but don’t start or end here we can ask the question ‘do they have to travel through the centre of Marple?’ Could we change how traffic moves around the town, someone mentioned a bypass although this will induce traffic flow. (Look at the A555 and High Lane) We could map those journeys and look at reprioritising roads and changing direction signage. There are challenges with this, namely Victorian architecture and naural bottle necks such as Dan Bank. Which is why it is necessary to also dissuade people to travel through Marple by changing the prioritisation of Stockport Road so that it is easier to take another route.
We have those journeys that start elsewhere and end in Marple, the cycling links work both ways and a pleasant town centre would attract more people. We have good car parks at present and people are willing to walk from them to the centre. (think the Trafford centre car park or Manchester train station to the shops)
Finally, we have to look at the journeys that start in Marple and end in neighbouring towns and Stockport. Better infrastructure would help here too, a lot is already there but there are some simple changes that could be made such as all weather surfaces rather than gravel and compacted mud.
Each of the above have particular challenges, as I have said I aint no expert and I’d dearly love to hear from our local councillors as to what their plans are, there is an ‘emergency active travel fund’ which is into the millions for Greater Manchester – how much of that pie do we get? The Stockport.gov website has the quite below for Romiley…
Romiley Active Neighbourhood
Working closely with residents and WalkRide Romiley, it's proposed to develop an Active Neighbourhood for streets north of Compstall Road. This will create improvements for pedestrians in the village centre as well as providing parklets for the community to enjoy. A safe cycle route to Stockport Town Centre will also be created with new crossings on Compstall/Stockport Road, making it easier to access and enjoy the canal and encourage the enablement of play streets.
The aim here isn’t to take all cars off the road – I couldn’t work or live without the car – but if we have a population in Greater Manchester of 2.547 Million people, and there are 200 Million car journeys of less than a kilometre, (0.62 miles) That equates to 78.5 journeys per person. The population figure includes children. If we use a DVLA figure of 141,797 cars registered in the GM boroughs then that figure is 1410 per car per year. This seems hard to believe, but if you count a drive from home to school, to home again, to school at 3pm, to home as four trips each day, it is feasible.
If we can make a dent in this, and children see that an alternative is possible then we may still have some hope!
The government are offering the money, we are being asked what we want to do with it, it seems churlish to say 'nah, we're alright as it is'
-
so the million dollar question has to be....
how do we stop Stockport Highways team f****g up every single "improvement" they implement? Expensive projects that deliver anything but improvements, seem to take an age because they take so long and end up causing more disruption than they purport to fix
-
This is where our local councillors come in, they could work with the different user groups to create a proposal that works for the town and will see us through the next 20 years and the further Londonification of Greater Manchester. This is what has happened in Romiley.
I don't hold out much hope though - perhaps I'll get to use a segregated cycle lane on my mobility scooter in 40 years time!!
-
How many more times its a private road .
Rollins Lane is shown on the OS map as a public right of way (bridleway). That obliges the council to maintain in a condition safe and suitable for horses, but pedestrians and cyclists are also allowed to use it. One way it might have its surface improved is if the council adopt it and designate it as a road - but given the cost involved, that isn’t going to happen.
However, elsewhere in the rights of way network (eg near the Roman Bridge and Windybottom) the council has installed a new hard surface on bridleways, and it might be worth trying to persuade them to do that in Rollins Lane?
-
However, elsewhere in the rights of way network (eg near the Roman Bridge and Windybottom) the council has installed a new hard surface on bridleways, and it might be worth trying to persuade them to do that in Rollins Lane?
The thing to do then is to build a case. Survey how Rolling Lane is used at the moment, what would be the attitude of current users and the owners, would it generate more cycling journeys. Evaluate the costs against the benefits. As you will know Dave that is how things are done. One individual whining here every so often is of no use. If the LA cannot even be convinced it's worth doing that analysis then someone has not set about making their case in a sufficiently positive way.
-
The thing to do then is to build a case. Survey how Rolling Lane is used at the moment, what would be the attitude of current users and the owners, would it generate more cycling journeys. Evaluate the costs against the benefits. As you will know Dave that is how things are done. One individual whining here every so often is of no use. If the LA cannot even be convinced it's worth doing that analysis then someone has not set about making their case in a sufficiently positive way.
Have you been down Rollings lane few hundred thousand to do up i recon plus cost of buying it from whom it belongs to .maybe a few owners maybe none just so someone can ride his bike that way you wont to able to use a night when dark .pie in the sky its just not worth it ....
-
As I have already explained, Amazon, the council could if it chooses install the kind of hard surface they have laid on bridleways elsewhere. That would not mean they have to ‘buy’ the track and it certainly wouldn’t cost hundreds of thousands.
-
A decent surface on Rollins Lane is very understandably the last thing the owners want. The road serves no purpose for the owners other than access to the fields. Put a decent surface on it and what will happen? Trucks will be able to quietly sneak up it at night to dump tyres, fridges and building rubble on it and the cyclists will fly along it at 15mph+ endangering everyone including themselves. Perhaps one of the householders on Bongs Road approaching from Dooley Lane might comment about the horrific fly tipping that has taken place because that road is accessible to vans. The surface of Rollins Lane is ideally suited for the traffic that uses it. Its OK for walking, horse riding or mountain bikes. If cyclists want to travel faster than ten miles an hour there is a purpose made route with just the surface the cyclist needs that goes by the name of Compstall Road and Lower Fold.
-
Good point by marplerambler, about a better surface encouraging cyclists to go too fast. That’s a real problem on the canal towpaths at the moment, where cyclists come hurtling along, passing dangerously close to pedestrians - it can be quite alarming. A strong argument for leaving Rollins Lane as it is, perhaps.
-
Good point by marplerambler, about a better surface encouraging cyclists to go too fast. That’s a real problem on the canal towpaths at the moment, where cyclists come hurtling along, passing dangerously close to pedestrians - it can be quite alarming. A strong argument for leaving Rollins Lane as it is, perhaps.
I agree. I don't cycle on the canal as it's very narrow when you have lots of walkers out and I tend to think they should have priority. The route is hardly a direct shortcut to the railway station in any case. You'd be better going on the road.
-
If you've ever tried the road there's on way you'd ever say that. I't quite a bit further, and there's lots more up and down, and thats without adding traffic into the mix. It can be very intimidating when cars have to get past you at any cost - which brings me to the second point, I wondered how long it would take before the "BuT cYCLiSts Go ToO fAsT!!£%!" argument was trotted out, and there we have it.
Now I'm not saying all cyclists are perfect, but is it really a problem? Or is it yet another case of "oh it MIGHT be a problem so let's stop it now"? In which case, what about the problem of people being hit by people driving cars? How many people each year have been injured and killed *on pavements* by drivers? (HINT - it''s LOT higher than the number of people killed or injured by bikes) - and that's just people ON PAVEMENTS. Let;s get upset about the REAL dangers, not something you think MIGHT happen
-
Good point by marplerambler, about a better surface encouraging cyclists to go too fast. That’s a real problem on the canal towpaths at the moment, where cyclists come hurtling along, passing dangerously close to pedestrians - it can be quite alarming. A strong argument for leaving Rollins Lane as it is, perhaps.
Good idea. Likewise since Strines Road is an absolute hellhole for speeding drivers of vehicles, making it an absolute no-go for many people on bikes who value their lives (thus the reason why so many use the parallel towpath which the usual suspects are now moaning about again), by the same virtue I suggest we return it to a gravelled/cobbled surface to slow the vehicles down. Fair enough right?
For the millionth time, if you’re unhappy about people on bikes on shared paths, or on the road in front of you, the thing to do is to campaign for and support proper segregated and dedicated cycle routes that are just for cycling. Then these awful people who are just trying not to drive (or can’t afford/don’t want a car) will be out of your way and you can enjoy... life? I don’t know, maybe some of you anti-any-improvement-to-peoples-lives brigade do that, sometimes! ;D
-
Good point by marplerambler, about a better surface encouraging cyclists to go too fast. That’s a real problem on the canal towpaths at the moment, where cyclists come hurtling along, passing dangerously close to pedestrians - it can be quite alarming. A strong argument for leaving Rollins Lane as it is, perhaps.
Glad someone is on my side .
-
I agree. I don't cycle on the canal as it's very narrow when you have lots of walkers out and I tend to think they should have priority.
"Pedestrians have priority on our towpaths so cyclists need to be ready to slow down. If you're in a hurry, consider using an alternative route for your journey. "
Canal and Riverside Trust, Towpath Code
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/our-campaigns/share-the-space-our-towpath-code
It's a shared space. Bikes are certainly allowed to use towpaths. But everyone - that's EVERYONE - needs to be aware of each others presence. And that means pedestrians need to be aware of cyclists, and cyclists need to be aware of pedestrians, and if we ALL look out for each other instead of shouting and moaning at each other, the world will be a far better place.
-
Glad someone is on my side .
If you are concerned, maybe take a different route...
-
Now I'm not saying all cyclists are perfect, but is it really a problem? Or is it yet another case of "oh it MIGHT be a problem so let's stop it now"?
No, cyclists really do go too fast on the towpath - anyone who imagines that it just ‘might’ be a problem obviously never goes on the towpath! Which is why the CRT advice (quoted by andrewbowden) makes it clear that pedestrians have priority. And the other bit of the CRT policy makes equally good sense: if you’re in a hurry, use the road.
-
I think we've gone full circle!
-
No, cyclists really do go too fast on the towpath
define "too fast", please? accurately, with an exact speed, referring to the conditions of the surface, the weather, the mechanical state of the bicycle and the ability of the cyclist. Oh, and assume the cyclist doesn't have anyway of judging the speed as there's no speedometer on the bike.
What's that? You can't?
Perhaps you meant to say "cyclists go faster than I would like them to on the towpath, becuase I wouldn't ride at that speed so no one else should". And that circles back to Andrews point - if we ALL pay attention and look out for each other a lot of these "issues" won't be issues. I am a considerate cyclist, I slow down when approaching people and ring a bell or more often call out "ting ting", yet still I bet about 50% of people are not paying attention and seem surprised when I pass them.
Personally I'm not using the towpaths in lockdown, as I can appreciate that wthey will be busy - but not every one feels safe on the roads and prefer to use the towpath. How fast are they allowed to go? There's also for example the fact that to get from Romiley to Marple, there's a massive valley in between, so people who aren't quite as fit as other may prefer the flatter route along the canal. How fast are they allowed to go?
I don't want to cause arguments, but "cyclists should go somewere else" is not going to work, sorry.
-
I really shouldn't have to spell this out, but clearly I need to, so here goes.
The CRT's Towpath Code says 'Pedestrians have priority on our towpaths so cyclists need to be ready to slow down'. No precise speed is given because it can't be - it depends entirely on the conditions, as nbt says. But as a rule of thumb, if anyone is startled or alarmed by a cyclist's speed, then they are going too fast.
It's simply a matter of commonsense and consideration for others. And at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, cyclists and pedestrians on the towpaths are often from very different generations and backgrounds, and maybe that's part of the problem.
The fast cyclists are overwhelmingly male, young or middle aged, and fit, and they often come in groups of two or three, or sometimes more. The pedestrians, by contrast, are of all ages and both sexes: families with toddlers, kids fooling around, couples having a romantic evening stroll, elderly people who can be quite frail. The old sometimes have slow reactions, and they often have poor hearing, so they don't hear you coming. Families with young children will stand around on the towpath, getting in cyclists' way, feeding the ducks and admiring the goslings. Their dogs will wander around sniffing and cocking their legs. It's all very peaceful, and then suddenly a group of cyclists appears from nowhere, and they shoot past within inches of people, and sometimes some of them find it quite upsetting and even frightening.
All we ask is that cyclists show consideration for those who may be much younger or much older than they are, and maybe less fit and healthy as well. Is that too much to expect?
-
As I say, I agree with you - I do slow down when cycling, I've followed one runner (who turned out to be a neighbour from five doors down) for several hundred yards as he had earbuds in and just couldn't hear four of us shouting at him. - but equally at the moment, there are simply more people out and about EVERYWHERE, so you can't just wander about oblivious to anyone and everyone else in the world because you are having such a lovely time outdoors. There are paths that I've used for years without ever meeting another soul until the advent of lockdown, but now no longer use as they are used by people and it would not be possible to acheive safe social distancing. Given this, can you agree that it not just on cyclists to slow down, but on EVERYONE to be aware of other people around them - cyclists and walkers? I've been really p****d off when out walking, having tucked myself in behind my wife, right into the hedge, only to have the couple walking the other way stroll on past, arm-in-arm, side-by-side, completely oblivious to the idea that they may wish to make the slightest effort to make an attempt at social distancing. It also frustrates me when we approach a group on our tandem, ringing bells, to see the person at the back turn round, acknowlegde our presence and step to one side - but completely fail to tell the others. This is on EVERYBODY - we need to work together to make things safer and nicer for EVERYONE, rather than frustrating attempts to change anything that doesn't improve your own individual cirsumstances (not aiming any of the above at you individually Dave, the "you" in this is mostly general)
-
If you've ever tried the road there's on way you'd ever say that.
But I did, and I have, and every time I cycle to Compstall I go on the road, as the park path is not practical and isn't much of a short cut. If I use it (which is hardly ever) I slow down to respect walkers, which effectively means that going at a quicker speed on the road enables me to get to my destination quicker.
This is not a case of Us v Them. I just cannot see a practical worthwhile reason for upgrading the Rollins Lane path to a "super cycle" route or similar for the very small alleged benefits that might bring. I cannot see that it will bring flocks of easygoing cyclists out of their cars.
Cutting down local traffic mainly means encouraging people to walk instead of driving short trips. But convenience is a difficult enemy to overcome.
-
can you agree that it not just on cyclists to slow down, but on EVERYONE to be aware of other people around them - cyclists and walkers?
No, not really. Canal towpaths are mostly private property - most of them are not public rights of way. Walkers and cyclists use them courtesy of the CRT, and in return, the CRT expects them to abide by their code of conduct. And their blue signs are clear enough: 'If you are cycling, you must go steady and slow down to give priority to pedestrians'. I reckon that's pretty clear, and anyone who is not prepared to comply with that simple instruction should ride their bike somewhere else.
-
No, not really. Canal towpaths are mostly private property - most of them are not public rights of way. Walkers and cyclists use them courtesy of the CRT, and in return, the CRT expects them to abide by their code of conduct. And their blue signs are clear enough: 'If you are cycling, you must go steady and slow down to give priority to pedestrians'. I reckon that's pretty clear, and anyone who is not prepared to comply with that simple instruction should ride their bike somewhere else.
Off the point a bit but the strange thing about canal towpaths is that a horse may walk on the towpath if it's towing a narrow boat and you can ride a bicycle on the towpath but I can't ride a horse on the tow path. Not that I would want to even if I still had a horse - he died 3 years ago - it just seems odd.
-
Interesting report here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906698/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906698/walking-and-cycling-statistics-england-2019.pdf) which reports (on page 10) that 66% of adults feel that cycling is dangerous. I am in that category - in the last two proper rides I did, on roads, I had to take evasive action to avoid a serious collision with reckless motorists. As a pedestrian, I think driving standards have deteriorated markedly in recent years. A few examples observed on my morning walks - yesterday, a tw*t driving a black BMW negotiating the bends on Strines Road with a mobile phone in one hand. Today, another tw*t driving a black Range Rover at 60mph+ along Arkwright Rd. Until we get idiots like this off the roads, I will think twice before cycling. That means more policing, possibly harsher penalties for speeding.... I don't know the full answer. However unless it involves a wedge of cash being transferred to the pockets of the Government's cronies, I can't see anything happening.
-
However unless it involves a wedge of cash being transferred to the pockets of the Government's cronies, I can't see anything happening.
The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.
-
The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.
Except that doesn't really prevent speeding. It only prevents exceeding the speed limit which is not the same thing. Sometimes doing half the speed limit is dangerously fast. Sometimes doing far more than the limit is quite safe, but illegal. You should never drive faster than the lower of safe speed or speed limit.
-
And at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, cyclists and pedestrians on the towpaths are often from very different generations and backgrounds, and maybe that's part of the problem.
The fast cyclists are overwhelmingly male, young or middle aged, and fit, and they often come in groups of two or three, or sometimes more. The pedestrians, by contrast, are of all ages and both sexes: families with toddlers, kids fooling around, couples having a romantic evening stroll, elderly people who can be quite frail.
You're correct. But I think it would help the debate to understand that there are different types of cyclists too. To my mind, those speeding cyclists on road bikes are more than likely the same people who speed when they drive their cars. There are plenty of slow, considerate cyclists. It doesn't help move the debate when all cyclists are lumped together as a bunch of bad ones. And the more we can create a safe, segregated cycle network the more chance we have of woman, kids, elderly etc choosing to cycle.
-
The technology exists to make speeding impossible; GPS linked to your car's ECU. It's affordable and would remove the need for any other speed control measures, camera's, police, speed humps etc which in turn would save more than speeding fines generate in revenue.
I agree with this but it's a long term fix. Initially there would be plenty of older vehicles capable of speeding, and also a nice black market in systems to defeat it. I think we still need enforcement - something the police seem to have given up on.
-
I don't think the police have given up on it so much, but they have limited resources in terms of staff and equipment, and priorities dictated by external pressures such as government ministers and police commisioners. What we need is a government that will actually provide funding for essential services like Police, NHS and Active Travel, rather than treating them as expenses that need to be reduced
-
When I started this thread it was to make readers aware of a survey intended to highlight the problems that deter people from cycling instead of using their cars. It has naturally changed into a discussion on the habits of different road users.
To bring it back more in line with the original intention that would hopefully result in more people being able to cycle safely and conveniently in Stockport may I suggest you take a look at the video via the link below.
It was not long ago Stockport was hoping to be called a City. There is an annual survey of cycling facilities in Cities around the world resulting in a top ten. It shows what is happening outside of the UK Not even London appears in the list, and as for Stockport? Well see for yourself. Click on the play triangle in the middle of the picture.
https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/video/the-top-10-cities-for-cycling-2019-what-makes-a-city-bike-friendly?fbclid=IwAR3lXHK1BE3gfPRn3EpstDjWXB15JKBMQ54FwvuVk-Bk17I4tweHYCQEl_g (https://www.globalcyclingnetwork.com/video/the-top-10-cities-for-cycling-2019-what-makes-a-city-bike-friendly?fbclid=IwAR3lXHK1BE3gfPRn3EpstDjWXB15JKBMQ54FwvuVk-Bk17I4tweHYCQEl_g)