Norwich set for traffic shake-up with cycle lanes in Magdalen Street and Cowgate

Dangerous cycling on Magdalen Street. Dangerous cycling on Magdalen Street.

Monday, March 17, 2014
12:38 PM

More than a quarter-of-a-million pounds could be spent on a traffic shake-up in two Norwich streets in an attempt to make them safer for cyclists.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Dangerous cycling on Magdalen Street.Dangerous cycling on Magdalen Street.

Contra-flow cycle lanes could be introduced in Magdalen Street and Cowgate as part of a project to create an eight-mile cycle route stretching from Heartsease to the University of East Anglia.

GRAPHIC: The £260,000 cycle contra-flow changes proposed for Magdalen Street and Cowgate

Norwich City Council has £5.5m, made up of £3.7m from the government and £1.8m of local transport and health money, for that scheme, known as Push The Pedalways.

And members of the Norwich Highways Agency Committee - made up of city and county councillors - will this week meet to discuss how some of that cash could be spent.

Officers are proposing that £261,000 be spent to bring in contra-flow cycling in Magdalen Street, between Edward Street and Bull Close Road, and in Cowgate, between Magdalen Street and Peacock Street.

Three years ago, councillors looked into whether contra-flow cycling could be introduced on a string of streets in Norwich. They concluded introducing it in both Magdalen Street and Cowgate would have “significant benefits” for cyclists.

But, while doing so in Cowgate was considered relatively straightforward and inexpensive, a scheme in Magdalen Street was deemed to be expensive and difficult to achieve.

The changes were put on ice, but have been revived thanks to the Push The Pedalways cash.

In a report which will come before councillors on Thursday, officers state: “One way streets cause significant problems for cyclists who wish to use the most direct route.

“Cyclists are forced to make unnecessary detours that incur additional delay and risk, or they choose to cycle on the footway or against the one way restriction.
“Cycling on the pavement in the northern end of Magdalen Street is a long standing concern among local people and members. The police have, in the past, prioritised enforcement here, but they do not have resources to constantly monitor the area.”

As part of the proposals, the two lane north bound approach on Magdalen Street to the Magdalen Gates junction would be cut to one lane and traffic would no longer be able to turn right from Magdalen Street into Bull Close Road.

The Magdalen Gates junction would have to be redesigned, with new traffic signals - at eye level for cyclists - introduced.

The signalled crossing on Magdalen Street near Magdalen Close - which officers said had been pressed just 24 times in a 24 hour monitoring period - would be removed, with the speed table kept in place as an “informal crossing point”.

A southbound cycle lane would be created between Bull Close Road and Edward Street, which would mean part of the pavement would have to be narrowed.

In Cowgate, a cycle lane will be created between Peacock Street and Magdalen Street, with futher eye-level traffic signals for cyclists put in at the Magdalen Street junction with Edward Street and Cowgate.

Councillors will be asked on Thursday to agree in principle to the changes and to agree that public consultation on the proposals is carried out.

If councillors do agree, then public consultation will be carried out in early June and, if the committee agrees to push ahead with the scheme, work would start early next year.

Contra-flows have already been introduced in Duke Street, Opie Street St Margaret’s Street, Upper Goat Lane and Pottergate.

57 comments

  • The council could stop people parking on the double yellow lines (and crossing and pavement!) on Magdalen Street. This would result in an increase in safety for all road users and pedestrians. And rather than costing money it would make money. I wonder why the council don't seem to bother enforcing the parking down here..........actually I do know but it probably won't be PC to say it.

    Report this comment

    jeffbridges769

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "without motorists paying huge taxes, there would be no roads! " Motorists do not pay "huge taxes" at all, private motoring receives huge subsidies, motorists pay virtually nothing toward the costs they impose on society. The RAC Foundation quote the total revenue from VED as £5.4 billion a year. Annual spending on roads is around £9 billion. If VED was a tax to pay for roads then we'd need drivers to pay almost double what they pay now to cover the bill. A quote from a government advisory group called Sustainable Development Commission, whose report on "Fairness in a Car-dependent Society" concluded: "it would appear that the overall costs imposed on society by motoring outweigh the revenues obtained from motorists, probably very substantially." Motorists are a drain on the economy. For a start there are 203,000 people injured or killed on the road every year. That's a lot of NHS, Police and Fire crew time to pay for, plus the on-going costs in benefits and aid for those seriously injured. Then there are on-going medical costs from rising obesity and falling fitness levels in the population due to everyone driving instead of walking and cycling as they would have done not so long ago. Then there is the lower air quality causing more medical costs for asthma and pollution related illnesses, plus the fines from failing to meet our CO2 reduction targets.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • Cycle proposals should be welcomed here, Magdalen Street is too narrow for law breaking and riding on the paths. Shame for the negative comments towards some cyclists, insurance, blah blah blah. Anyway, any improvements for encouraging cycling can only be a good thing for improving health, which would reduce the burden on nhs funding resources. At least the Department for Transport recognised this, by awarding Norwich some grant money, only one of a few uk cities to receive some extra cash, but sadly no it cant be spent on potholes...

    Report this comment

    Dee

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Just go back to how it used to be and make the rd go both ways, cost, about a £10, to take down the signs

    Report this comment

    Blocked User

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • In my opinion cyclists over 16 should have to pay an insurance, they jump red lights, get knocked off their bike, damage the vehicle let alone the state of mind of a driver who does knock them off their bike!!!!!!! Again the 4 wheeled motorists are having to "think" bike whether it be pedal or motor cycle. Why should we have to think for them when they blatantly can't & don't think for themselves let alone other road users!!!!!!! I don't think anyone under the age of 16 should be on a bike unsupervised without a responsible adult, certainly not on a main road. If you don't like my comment then fine, it is my opinion and no one else's.

    Report this comment

    melalmighty

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @FredJ - Every criticism you've just laid at cyclists can equally be laid at drivers. Speeding, tailgating, parking on the pavement, parking in cycle lanes, phone use, listening to music in their soundproofed vehicles. Before laying blame at cyclists lets put that in perspective with car drivers? As for "why arn't they using the cycle path": Lots of reasons. Perhaps: it does not go where the cyclist want to go, perhaps its gull of glassthorns (unlike most roads), perhaps its shared, perhaps it requires the cyclist to give way every few 100 yards or less, perhaps the cyclist might wish to turn right across traffic at some point, perhaps it stops abruptly meaning a cyclist might have to join fast traffic from a stand still, perhaps cars are parked in it. All legitimate, realistic day to day problems that using a cycle path can cause. The the tables where turned and drivers had to put up with such problems they wouldn't. And for the comment "its never their fault if I hit them": Im not sure where you get this idea from. Can you point to any article where they cyclist was found at fault by the police but the driver was punished? And finally, VED is absolutely calculated on emissions. Thats a fact. Don't like it don't take it out on cyclists, write to your MP.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • " in that case, why introduce a cycle lane in Magdallen St that goes against the flow of vehicular traffic - won't that make it even more dangerous?" Quite possibly. What we must remember are that cycle lanes in Norwich and all over the country are generally rubbish, they're rarely swept, they carry ice for longer than the road, they have pedestrians wandering about, dogs, dog mess, broken glass. Cyclists constitute more than 2% of traffic but get less than 2% of road funding, and most facilities are rubbish.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • " A few weeks ago we had a Police purge against car drivers doing this exact same thing in Brazengate, so can we now expect that to be legalised??? And if not why are cyclists who ignore the law treated in such a different way to car drivers???" Because cyclists haven't hurt anyone. The drivers who ignored the no entry sign on Brazengate broke a vulnerable road user's leg and left another with a fractured skull. I cannot seriously believe you think the risk posed by someone on a twenty pound bike poses the same risk as someone in a half-ton car. Around forty times more people are killed by cars driving on the pavement than cyclists, it makes sense to focus on where the danger comes from-drivers.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • @marty r: 'our money'? Are you assuming that people who happen to use bicycles don't pay tax?

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Personally, I feel there should be a total embargo on ALL new road spending, until this country can afford to repair the existing roads. All we hear is that we have no money for repairs, poholes, etc. yet we add to the burden yaer on tear.

    Report this comment

    RogerP

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • What I don't understand is why the council is considering this change to Magdallen St when there's an existing route that can be used? It seems they're pandering to those few to flout the law, rather than encouraging people to keep to it. Spend some money on better signage - it'll cost a couple of thousand instead of £260,000. Personally I'd rather cycle on the existing route that go against the flow of cars, buses and lorries. Have you gone down Westwick St during rush hour? Scares the hell out of me as most drivers think you're riding the wrong way and let you know it! P.S. I walk, ride a cycle, drive a car and ride a motorbike. I've even driven LGVs in the past, so I have seen it from a number of viewpoints. In all groups, it's the minority that make the reputation for the majority, but it also sets a cultural prejudice against a group seen as "less legitimate" to be on the road, however misguided that is. The city council should look at fixing the current issues before making new ones. There are plenty of inappropriately sited cycle lanes that cause more problems (both to the cyclist and other road users) than they solve. They should be working with representatives of the different types of road users to determine where the best use of the limited resources should go, not making pet projects that are not value for money.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @Labratone: its a point no one is missing because roads are not funded in the way you think they are as explained further below your comment.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • @melalmighty: 'why shouldn't cyclists pay some form of insurance' : Because as well as the things I point out cyclists do (statistically) offer very little danger. This is backed up by the fact it costs me £20 per year for full 3rd party insurance for my bike. That means that even the insurance companies realize they pose little to no danger. Now your concerns about irresponsible cyclists causing a pile up or whatever have yet to materialize, and if that was a concern that was backed up with evidence I might change my stance. But the point of a cyclist acting irresponsible brings up the pedestrian problem again. We know that on occasions a pedestrian walks into traffic without looking. So we know that they too could cause a pile up, so logically there is as much of a reason to have them insured as cyclists. And your point of 90% of of pedestrians keep to the path, that's of course true, but look at London there are pedestrians everywhere, and on many occasions jaywalk (to use an american term) in the millions each day. We don't look to insure them for exactly the same reason, which is they are not the ones not introducing the danger. There are other issues with insurance: How would it be policed? Some kind of registration? That unfortunately is the logical next step, and although many may want it, its simply wont happen because its problematic on many many levels (from health to environmental to logistical). Also, Apart from Japan, we would be the only country in the world to implement such a law. Its not a step this government (or any government wishing to encourage cheap, healthy, environmentally friendly mode of transport) will ever implement. I understand your concerns though, but on the whole, there are much bigger problems.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "..and so it goes on, slime in this ear, slime in that ear...don't you ever yearn for chaaange??.." Adrian Edmondson: Bottom circa. 1993.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • It would be better to concentrate on law-breaking by motorists. Norwich has too many idiot boy racers speeding, cutting corners, driving on the pavement and using mobile phones. Where are the police? Three cyclists killed in Norwich, the drivers were at fault in every single fatality. John Routledge was killed by a speeding driver who got a fine and a year ban so even when drivers who are breaking the law kill someone they get a slap on the wrist.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Reading these comments shows nothing so much as how so many drivers are profoundly ignorant about cyclists and who pays for the roads. Take keiths, criticising cyclists for not paying tax when he has no idea whether they own a car (most cyclists do). It's depressing the levels of ignorance among drivers.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @ Nobbly1 cyclists over the age of 16 should have to pay an insurance just like motorists & users of motor bikes, having insurance doesn't make you a safe rider, driver or cyclist but when and if the inevitable happened at least some form of insurance (from a cyclists POV) could help protect the motorist, cyclist or motor cyclist. I went to London on Saturday and saw the way some of the cyclists are met with impatient drivers, and I also noticed lots of white push bikes with memorials on, that only means one thing. If every body who uses the roads thought for them selves a bit more then maybe just maybe everyone would be safer on the roads, we all know that isn't going to happen though don't we?

    Report this comment

    melalmighty

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • There's a perfectly good and safe route for cyclists from Sprowston Road towards the cathedral - you turn right into Magpie Rd, left into Esdelle St, bear left into Edward St then turn right into Magdallen St. But of course, that doubles the time to two minutes, instead of one, to get to the same place.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • frank young

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "..and so it goes on, slime in this ear, slime in that ear...don't you ever yearn for chaaange??.." Adrian Edmondson: Bottom circa. 1993.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • @melalmighty: your thoughts about insurance are all wrong. Road users insurance requirement is based on the danger they pose. The need for cars to have insurance is clear, its because a car can with ease right off another car worth £100s-£1000s . The danger a cyclists poses at would be a dent or a scratch to a panel. Its a thing most, if not all people can pay for without any need for a deeply complex insurance system. In fact, if you're worried about such things, there really is a legitimate need for pedestrians to be insured, they afterall use the road and come in contact with cars (parked and moving) in far greater numbers than cyclists. Two other small and important points: Do not assume cyclists are uninsured. Many house hold cover policies cover cyclists liability from home, and even if they are uninsured, they are still legally required (like everyone) to pay for any damage that is caused. A lack of insurance does not equal a lack of responsibility.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • It's all very well making more lanes for cyclists, but why don't they pay a tax, after all motorists do. And when will the powers to be enforce the rule "no cycling on paths, front and rear lights must be working" they are not above the law. Although police just turn a blind eye to it

    Report this comment

    Derek McDonald

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "they know that per mile travelled cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road" - in that case, why introduce a cycle lane in Magdallen St that goes against the flow of vehicular traffic - won't that make it even more dangerous? What's wrong with using the existing route round the back of Magdallen St? Could a cyclist please answer that question? It only adds 1 minute to the journey and surely it's much safer as you're going with the flow of traffic?

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • @melalmighty: your thoughts about insurance are all wrong. Road users insurance requirement is based on the danger they pose. The need for cars to have insurance is clear, its because a car can with ease right off another car worth £100s-£1000s . The danger a cyclists poses at would be a dent or a scratch to a panel. Its a thing most, if not all people can pay for without any need for a deeply complex insurance system. In fact, if you're worried about such things, there really is a legitimate need for pedestrians to be insured, they afterall use the road and come in contact with cars (parked and moving) in far greater numbers than cyclists. Two other small and important points: Do not assume cyclists are uninsured. Many house hold cover policies cover cyclists liability from home, and even if they are uninsured, they are still legally required (like everyone) to pay for any damage that is caused. A lack of insurance does not equal a lack of responsibility.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Well done again Norwich! We need Norfolk County Council to do this sort of thing in King's Lynn town centre, instead of blocking it at every turn and expecting bicycles to ride on the polluted Railway Road gyratory.

    Report this comment

    M

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • James worth... I AGREE with keith S...they do everything he says they do...I KNOW because I drive and see what they are capable of...I ALSO walk and have to avoid being runover ON THE PAVEMENT!!!. Emmisions have nothing to do with it.... Cyclists with NO LIGHTSREFLECTORS cyclists ON MOBILEPHONESMUSIC Players cyclists WHO JUMP RED LIGHTS ROUNDABOUTS.....answer meus this WHY ARN"T THEY ON THEIR BELOVEDCOUNCIL PAID FORDESIGNATED CYCLEPATHS THEN??????? If they get hit or knocked over it's never their fault...WHY is that I wonder????oh yes because motorists are easy to blame and fine.... so that's why I go to work IN MY CAR!!!!!! then.......

    Report this comment

    FredJ

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Separating cyclists from other traffic is a very sensible idea. That way cyclists don't hold everyone else up whilst plodding along at 10mph. I have no problem with anyone choosing to cycle, so long as they respect other road users (ie the ones who have paid for the privilege of being there).

    Report this comment

    Smellthecoffee

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • We've got cycle lanes all over Norfolk. They are called pavements.

    Report this comment

    alecto

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • I am a driver, a biker and a cyclist. I therefore have a persepctive others perhaps don't. The fact is, there is a noisy minority of very pathetic motorists out there (like 'Keith' below), and also a minority of victim mentality cyclists. The pathetic motorists are the ones who are getting shafted with insane petrol costs, who spend 10 hours a week not moving in traffic queues, who the government see as a cash cow. Somehow, though, they don't want to do anything about that. Oh, no. If these pathetic motorists aimed some of the ire they seem to easily conjure up for cyclists, towards real problems (the high cost of petrol, blackboxes in cars, automatic speed limiting as standard by 2020) - who knows, something might be done about it. Instead, though, they'd rather moan on about invented issues like tax and red lights. These drivers are pathetic - completely divided and conquered. Why are you arguing that cyclists sould "pay tax" - when you should be arguing that you should PAY LESS? These idiotic drivers should be grateful for all the cyclists - more of them means fewer cars in front of you. Likewise, there are a handful of whiny cyclists, who ride with assumptions (rather than defensively) - they assume the car will see them, assume the car will give way, etc. If a car so much as slights them, they're having a hernia over it. Cyclists should always ride as if they are vulnerable - because they are. Some cyclsist don't, and when the proverbial hits the fan, they should be held to blame. Putting aside the minority of idiots, the majority of people - like myself - haven't got time for all this "them v us" nonsense. This black and white thinking "all cyclists are this, all cyclists do this.." is for mental midgets.

    Report this comment

    dan

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @KeithS: It a constant surprise to many but on a local level local taxes (council taxrates) pay for road infrastructure. In addition to this around 90% of cyclists drive, so the assumption that 'they don't pay their way' is totally factually wrong and nothing more than an assumption of many drivers. As for the comment 'make roads safer for them!' who is this 'them'. Is it a member of your family, a child, a doctor, a care worker...Who exactly?

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Just go back to how it used to be and make the rd go both ways, cost, about a £10, to take down the signs

    Report this comment

    Blocked User

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • There is nothing so bad that local government cannot make worse, I just wish these people would forget these nonsensical Mickey Mouse traffic schemes and start repairing our pothole and sunken drain scarred roads. Both cyclists and motorists would benefit from smooth roads! I don't buy into the cyclist versus motorist arguments,it's stirred up by the politically correct agenda of the council,who penalise motorists with bus lanes,parking charges and cycle lanes in nonsensical places! Appoint a " pothole officer"who drives round and takes note of road repairs needed and actions them! logical and sensible so it won't happen of course!

    Report this comment

    Harry Rabinowitz

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • The council could stop people parking on the double yellow lines (and crossing and pavement!) on Magdalen Street. This would result in an increase in safety for all road users and pedestrians. And rather than costing money it would make money. I wonder why the council don't seem to bother enforcing the parking down here..........actually I do know but it probably won't be PC to say it.

    Report this comment

    jeffbridges769

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Sorry, year on year..... rush, rush.

    Report this comment

    RogerP

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @Smellthecoffee: You've paid to use a car, not the road. The road is also known as the 'public highway' for a reason. And if you choose to use a heavy, polluting vehicle on it that will damage it and the health of others you have to pay, if that's a problem, don't drive. As for "plodding along at 10mph": tough, leave for work earlier. Thats what I do when I know traffic is going to be bumper to bumper plodding along at 10mph (or slower) you should do the same. Learn to respect people.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • KeithS: what a load of rubbish you are speaking, I have two cars which I pay my "Vehicle Excise Duty" on and still ride a bike, when I do thats one less car on the road. Not to mention the fact road tax is calculated on emissions of which bikes create zero.

    Report this comment

    James Worth

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "..and so it goes on, slime in this ear, slime in that ear...don't you ever yearn for chaaange??.." Adrian Edmondson: Bottom circa. 1993.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • "every day without fail, I see cyclists, who obviously think they are too good to use the path" Maybe because, unlike you, they know that per mile travelled cycle lanes are more dangerous than the road and the Highway Code states cycle lanes are for children and slow cyclists, riders doing more than 15mph should use the road. Have you considered additional driver training, or at least re-acquaint yourself with the Highway Code?

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @Derek McDonald: They do pay tax. Here's the thing, road tax is not a tax that pays for the roads directly, and on a local level most if not all funding for the road, pavement and cycle paths comes from Counsel tax and rates. Most government funding that that contributes to roads in fact contributes mostly for "'A' roads or motorways. These are roads either a cyclist probably wont use or cant use. Past that, around 90% of cyclists drive, so on some level they do pay Vehicle Excise Duty. Now there is an argument that they should pay VED on their bikes regardless, but a few points have to be remembered: they are that bikes do not pullout (so by cars standards that makes them road tax free). They free up space, they don't kill, they don't use valuable fuels or take up parking spaces, and they lower the cost on the NHS due to the increased heath of those who cycle vs those who sit in cars being inactive. So looking at the bigger picture there is no incentive at all to charge cyclists to cycle, but don't make the mistake that they don't pay their way. I'm a higher rate tax payer, in a 2nd from top council band house with 2 cars in the drive way. I pay more than most, and I use my cars less than most. Oh, one last thing. A 4 door car damages the road around 750x more than a cycle. So more bikes means less wear. Its win win, and if the selfish entitled few could see past this we would live in a nicer city.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @FredJ - Every criticism you've just laid at cyclists can equally be laid at drivers. Speeding, tailgating, parking on the pavement, parking in cycle lanes, phone use, listening to music in their soundproofed vehicles. Before laying blame at cyclists lets put that in perspective with car drivers? As for "why arn't they using the cycle path": Lots of reasons. Perhaps: it does not go where the cyclist want to go, perhaps its gull of glassthorns (unlike most roads), perhaps its shared, perhaps it requires the cyclist to give way every few 100 yards or less, perhaps the cyclist might wish to turn right across traffic at some point, perhaps it stops abruptly meaning a cyclist might have to join fast traffic from a stand still, perhaps cars are parked in it. All legitimate, realistic day to day problems that using a cycle path can cause. The the tables where turned and drivers had to put up with such problems they wouldn't. And for the comment "its never their fault if I hit them": Im not sure where you get this idea from. Can you point to any article where they cyclist was found at fault by the police but the driver was punished? And finally, VED is absolutely calculated on emissions. Thats a fact. Don't like it don't take it out on cyclists, write to your MP.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • This proposal will not widen Magdalen street to make the road safer when cyclists ride against the traffic. So it can only be seen as simply making what cyclists are currently doing legal. A few weeks ago we had a Police purge against car drivers doing this exact same thing in Brazengate, so can we now expect that to be legalised??? And if not why are cyclists who ignore the law treated in such a different way to car drivers???

    Report this comment

    el84

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • As a keen cyclist, why should i have to pay a tax? Not all of the cyclists go through red lights or on paths just a select idiotic few. Please don't tar us with the same brush? Just as us cyclists shouldn't tar every driver for those who don't look when pulling out of junctions, get irate when they're stuck behind a cyclist an rev their engines to try and intimidate them. Yes this has happened to me on several occasions. I think it's great that the city are looking to provide safe cycle ways to avoid the roads etc. Should be more like the Dutch where at least they're looked after instead of being treated like dirt and the scourge of the roads.

    Report this comment

    nobbly1

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • I am a driver, a biker and a cyclist. I therefore have a persepctive others perhaps don't. The fact is, there is a noisy minority of very pathetic motorists out there (like 'Keith' below), and also a minority of victim mentality cyclists. The pathetic motorists are the ones who are getting shafted with insane petrol costs, who spend 10 hours a week not moving in traffic queues, who the government see as a cash cow. Somehow, though, they don't want to do anything about that. Oh, no. If these pathetic motorists aimed some of the ire they seem to easily conjure up for cyclists, towards real problems (the high cost of petrol, blackboxes in cars, automatic speed limiting as standard by 2020) - who knows, something might be done about it. Instead, though, they'd rather moan on about invented issues like tax and red lights. These drivers are pathetic - completely divided and conquered. Why are you arguing that cyclists sould "pay tax" - when you should be arguing that you should PAY LESS? These idiotic drivers should be grateful for all the cyclists - more of them means fewer cars in front of you. Likewise, there are a handful of whiny cyclists, who ride with assumptions (rather than defensively) - they assume the car will see them, assume the car will give way, etc. If a car so much as slights them, they're having a hernia over it. Cyclists should always ride as if they are vulnerable - because they are. Some cyclsist don't, and when the proverbial hits the fan, they should be held to blame. Putting aside the minority of idiots, the majority of people - like myself - haven't got time for all this "them v us" nonsense. This black and white thinking "all cyclists are this, all cyclists do this.." is for mental midgets.

    Report this comment

    dan

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Monkeynuts I was rather referring to cyclists having insurance for their benefit, personal benefit, not the scratches or scrapes on vehicles that may happen, and of course if the cyclist was to blame for a more serious accident then if necessary a personal injury claim may be in order (I am employed by the UK's largest insurance company) although there are too many of them now, but let's just say a motorist has to swerve to avoid hitting a cyclist, yet trying to avoid the cyclist then led to a rather unfortunate series of events where lots of damage was done to cars, buildings or even human life, someone should be responsible for that, that's assuming the cyclist was riding his bike irresponsibly, this does and has happened, £10000's of pounds worth of damage, serious injury to life, with witnesses, yet no insurance for the innocent party to claim from. This also happens to bikers and 4 wheeled motorists too. Motor insurance is one of the biggest things people hate paying for because they have to have it by law, why shouldn't cyclists have to pay some form of insurance because they have to, not because they choose to? Pedestrians have a path 90% of the time they should use! not all of them do I know that! but if you see someone damage your car or property and they are said pedestrian and you can prove they've damaged your property then challenge them! you would if they were on a bike or in a car! that's why they should be made to pay some form of insurance!!!

    Report this comment

    melalmighty

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "..and so it goes on, slime in this ear, slime in that ear...don't you ever yearn for chaaange??.." Adrian Edmondson: Bottom circa. 1993.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • So, now we know. If SOME cyclists act illegally, the city council will bend over backwards to accomodate them. I wonder if that works for other areas - will they remove traffic lights for cyclists, as a significant minority ignore them anyway? How about give way junctions? What about just banning private vehicles from Norwich centre so the minority of cyclists who ignore the road laws can do what they want? Oh, right, they're already doing that.

    Report this comment

    So_Many_Haters!

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Great, they pay noting to use the roadspavements, they flout the law with reckless riding and then they get thousands spent to make roads safer for them!

    Report this comment

    KeithS

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @Labratone 'is that without motorists paying huge taxes, there would be no roads': No one is avoiding that question because that question has no bases in fact. As explained, road funding is mostlypartly funded out of the same pot that pays for pavements, it comes from local taxes - council tax and rates mostly. Most larger road systems of course are topped up by government funding, which you could argue motorists contribute more to, but these roads are motorways and 'A' roads. Cyclists by in large wont use those. Further to this, most cyclists (around 85% according to government figures) already own cars. So those cyclists are fully paid up members of the motoring community (if there is such a thing) yet when they use their bikes they are not clogging up roads, causing potholes, killing anyone, polluting, using fuel, taking of valuable parking spaces etc. Taking myself as an example: I pay the 2nd from top counsel band, I own two cars, as a result I pay more than most and use my cars less than most. But further to make a point: without car drivers we would still have roads, we had them before cars, we would have them now. The difference would be we would have allot less of them, we wouldn't needs many to accommodate the millions of single occupancy cars we currently don't really have space for, and what roads we would have would last for years and years without the constant pothole problem caused by cars.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • monkeynuts: "them" refers to cyclists, obvious that! James Worth: the fact vehicle excise duty is charged on an emissions basis is flawed, a low emissions car that travels 30k miles will be more polluting than another with higher emissions that travels much fewer miles. Technically a bike does create emissions, it's manufacture, it's delivery to retail etc, but those are conveniently swept under the carpet and the good old tax mule motorist has to pay instead. But I digress.

    Report this comment

    KeithS

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "Great, they pay noting to use the roadspavements, they flout the law with reckless riding and then they get thousands spent to make roads safer for them! " How can someone attain adulthood, know how to use a computer, and not know how roads are paid for? It's scary that there are drivers like keiths out there, profoundly ignorant as to how roads are paid for and full of prejudice and sweeping statements.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @Labratone 'is that without motorists paying huge taxes, there would be no roads': No one is avoiding that question because that question has no bases in fact. As explained, road funding is mostlypartly funded out of the same pot that pays for pavements, it comes from local taxes - council tax and rates mostly. Most larger road systems of course are topped up by government funding, which you could argue motorists contribute more to, but these roads are motorways and 'A' roads. Cyclists by in large wont use those. Further to this, most cyclists (around 85% according to government figures) already own cars. So those cyclists are fully paid up members of the motoring community (if there is such a thing) yet when they use their bikes they are not clogging up roads, causing potholes, killing anyone, polluting, using fuel, taking of valuable parking spaces etc. Taking myself as an example: I pay the 2nd from top counsel band, I own two cars, as a result I pay more than most and use my cars less than most. But further to make a point: without car drivers we would still have roads, we had them before cars, we would have them now. The difference would be we would have allot less of them, we wouldn't needs many to accommodate the millions of single occupancy cars we currently don't really have space for, and what roads we would have would last for years and years without the constant pothole problem caused by cars.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • " in that case, why introduce a cycle lane in Magdallen St that goes against the flow of vehicular traffic - won't that make it even more dangerous?" Quite possibly. What we must remember are that cycle lanes in Norwich and all over the country are generally rubbish, they're rarely swept, they carry ice for longer than the road, they have pedestrians wandering about, dogs, dog mess, broken glass. Cyclists constitute more than 2% of traffic but get less than 2% of road funding, and most facilities are rubbish.

    Report this comment

    Stan Bowles

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

  • I keep saying 'CYCLISTS RULE - OK! This latest pathetic attempt proves it. Well said all contributors (upto now!)

    Report this comment

    biglingers

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • @KeithS: 'Them' - Tax payers. Got it, nice we are on the same page. Regarding your comment on 'bikes not being emissions free'. Your point is valid, but then again, no manufactured item is emission free, and we pay Vat on those - that includes bikes, cars, and toasters.

    Report this comment

    monkeynuts

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Many extreme opposites here! But, a point that everyone seems to miss, motorists & cyclists alike, is that without motorists paying huge taxes, there would be no roads! Public transport & cyclists could not support a road network. Norwich is an old and cramped city & does not easily lend itself to changes in roads or cycle lanes. (Personally I avoid the city like the plague). However, having observed the effects of the cycle lane in Thorpe, it now seems more dangerous, and slower, for both cyclists & vehicles alike. Heading downhill towards Sainsbury's the lanes are too narrow, which means that large vehicles impinge on the cycle lanes anyway. Then at the junction, traffic backs up far more than it used to because there is only one right turn lane now. Odd that none of the highly qualified, (and no doubt, highly paid), planners thought about taking a slice of the verge for a cycle path. Last, but not least, will cyclists use new lanes? The footpath & cycle path in Colney Lane was built after a long wait and yet, every day without fail, I see cyclists, who obviously think they are too good to use the path, holding up the traffic while they grind up the hill away from the hospital, (quite often in the dark).

    Report this comment

    Labratone

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • Quarter of a million of our money!!!!!

    Report this comment

    marty r

    Monday, March 17, 2014

  • "..and so it goes on, slime in this ear, slime in that ear...don't you ever yearn for chaaange??.." Adrian Edmondson: Bottom circa. 1993.

    Report this comment

    frank young

    Tuesday, March 18, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

We're updating the forecasts - back soon

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT