Plan to make Bradford a capital of cycling (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Am i reading this right,the council supports cycling in BRADFORD, can i just say why do they spend thousands of pounds on tax payers money on cycle lanes on BRADFORD`S roads and they do nothing about the parking of cars in them. Another waste of money by the council.

emu999 wrote:
Am i reading this right,the council supports cycling in BRADFORD, can i just say why do they spend thousands of pounds on tax payers money on cycle lanes on BRADFORD`S roads and they do nothing about the parking of cars in them. Another waste of money by the council.

Depends which part of Bradford your talking about. Toller/Duckworth lane doesn't seem to have anything done about cars parking where they want, yet strangely Bingley does.

Leaving aside the simple fact that Bradford is far too hilly to ever be other than a good area for mountain biking....

Why cannot SUSTRANS sort out the link from Queensbury to Cullingworth and beyond to the extent that it can be used by cyclists? Since it was 'opened' it has been a trail which has actually gone nowhere as it is not completed.

Bradford could be unique as the best place for adding cycling routes is near the cancel away from the main road and traffic. If the council planners created cycle only routes with adequate lighting then I think that this would added to the value of the city. But the council seems to think that by adding cycle lanes everywhere without actually looking at how the roads are used, Cottingley bar is a prime example of this and in my opinion has made the lanes for cars too narrow and dangerous, in a morning the side of the road going down to the round about has two lanes of traffic always has but they decided it would be a great idea to reduce this to one lane and a cycle lane, resulting in the cycle lane being taken up by cars.

Apollo wrote:
Leaving aside the simple fact that Bradford is far too hilly to ever be other than a good area for mountain biking....

Why cannot SUSTRANS sort out the link from Queensbury to Cullingworth and beyond to the extent that it can be used by cyclists? Since it was 'opened' it has been a trail which has actually gone nowhere as it is not completed.

Because the landowner at the end of station rd link won't allow his land to be accessed.

Why sustrans started the link without commitments from all land owners on the route amazes me.

no such thing as too hilly for cycling apollo,i do 200 to 300 mls per month on mountain and hybrid,would'nt do that in york as it would be pretty boring.always a good side to a hill

markjoe wrote:
Bradford could be unique as the best place for adding cycling routes is near the cancel away from the main road and traffic. If the council planners created cycle only routes with adequate lighting then I think that this would added to the value of the city. But the council seems to think that by adding cycle lanes everywhere without actually looking at how the roads are used, Cottingley bar is a prime example of this and in my opinion has made the lanes for cars too narrow and dangerous, in a morning the side of the road going down to the round about has two lanes of traffic always has but they decided it would be a great idea to reduce this to one lane and a cycle lane, resulting in the cycle lane being taken up by cars.

"Bradford could be unique as the best place for adding cycling routes is near the cancel away from the main road and traffic. "
"cancel"?
This morning I was confronted on two occasions by cyclists on the pavement (on both occasions there was a cycle lane at the side of the pavement and the riders were travelling in the right direction to have used it) is this the new cycling strategy?

I often feel unsafe driving my car in Bradford, there's no way I'd cycle.

Mike Strutter wrote:

Apollo wrote: Leaving aside the simple fact that Bradford is far too hilly to ever be other than a good area for mountain biking.... Why cannot SUSTRANS sort out the link from Queensbury to Cullingworth and beyond to the extent that it can be used by cyclists? Since it was 'opened' it has been a trail which has actually gone nowhere as it is not completed.

Because the landowner at the end of station rd link won't allow his land to be accessed. Why sustrans started the link without commitments from all land owners on the route amazes me.

Mike the question was rhetorical - I know why it is not a true trail.

The point I was making was the one you make - which is that it was therefore a complete waste of money.

The missing link will never be subject to compulsory purchase and the landowner will not allow access - therefore an impasse.

I agree with the above. In general the inner city area of Bradford will never be a major attraction to cyclists because we have such steep roads, but also because the roads are old and are just too narrow to accommodate cycle lanes as well as cars. Another bad example of a very hazardous cycle lane is along Bolton Road at its junction with Lister Lane (Peel Park) where two very narrow city centre bound vehicle lanes mean that cars have no choice but to encroach on the cycle lane and therefore potentially hit a passing cyclist. The layout here is also dangerous because of the way parts of the footway kerbs project excessively into the road.

claytonian wrote:
no such thing as too hilly for cycling apollo,i do 200 to 300 mls per month on mountain and hybrid,would'nt do that in york as it would be pretty boring.always a good side to a hill

correct freewheeling down it...

Just to be clear, the 'strategy' is in it's draft form and welcomes comments just like those above. Each one of them addresses a point in the 5 strategy areas. See http://cyclebradford
.org.uk/strategy

Also it is NOT a council initiative, it's coming from cyclists and cycling organisations within the district, but that will inevitably involve the council in some way.

Recent events such as the SkyRide and CycleFest helped show that there are a lot of people riding their bikes in the Bradford district, (and I suspect there are more that would like to) - but we're interested in working out exactly what can be done so that people can enjoy the simple pleasure of riding their bikes long into the future.

If you have comments, suggestions and ideas, then we'd love to hear them.

I wouldn't mind if the few cyclists we have in Bradford used the cycle lanes, but a lot of them seem to use the pavements in any direction, causing a danger to pedestrians, then just dodge round cars with no respect whatsoever to the highway code. The best thing would be for cycles to carry a registration plate like they have to do in Holland for instance, then at least some of the idiots could be brought to book for their stupidity.
I don't have any problem whatsoever with responsible cyclists but there are way too many suicidal idiots out there.

Ludicrous idea ! There are very few cyclists who cycle within the Bradford area. Look at the make up of the cities population and how many do you see cycling. The roads are far too dangerous, Bradford had a terrible record on road safety and the standard of car driving is appauling. This scheme is another attempt at improving the image of the city and is yet another waste of money. * I notice that the password on the T&A website to make this comment is 'mass-fail' ?

Mik-e, just because "There are very few cyclists who cycle within the Bradford area." does not mean that this is a ludicrous idea, look across the border into Kirklees to see what can done. I do, however, have grave doubts as to whether Bradford council have the first clue as how to acheive this, after all it was they who sold the protected corridor at the Transperience preventing the completion of the Spen Valley Greenway for a number of years until they bought it back! The design layout of ALL new road schemes has a pecking order of priorities, starting with pedestrians, cyclists and then motorised vehicles, there is little evidence within the Bradford area to suggest that this government directive has ever been followed, just look at the number of mini roundabouts. The supposed Sustrans "route66" from the Greenway to the Leeds Liverpool Canal only exists in someone's head somewhere, trust me I have tried to follow it. A route could be built (should already have been) from the city centre to Shipley at a relatively low cost but this council would rather spend £25M on a pond. However if Bradford Council ARE serious, then they need to listen to people who DO know what they are doing, Kirklees Highways for instance, and act upon their advice but given the evidence I see before me every day as I cycle into Bradford (from Kirkleess) there is little to get me excited. Personally I would not trust them to sit the right way round on a toilet seat if I was being honest.

Apollo wrote:
Leaving aside the simple fact that Bradford is far too hilly to ever be other than a good area for mountain biking.... Why cannot SUSTRANS sort out the link from Queensbury to Cullingworth and beyond to the extent that it can be used by cyclists? Since it was 'opened' it has been a trail which has actually gone nowhere as it is not completed.

But the hills will get you fitter surely! I am surprised that the article does not allude to the heritage of cycling in the city which once had a large number of cycling clubs, including at least one of the oldest surviving in England. The big challenge for cyclists in the next year or so will be the abundance of pot holes following the cold weather - Bfd roads are bad. Ditto I suspect that the city has more than its share of distinct no-go areas for cyclists. Anyone for a ride along Toller Lane/Whetley Hill???

CYCLE IN BRADFORD!!! are you mad, I'd rather shallow fry my testicles than attempt to ride a pushiron down Leeds Rd, it's like a futuristic vidoe game attempting to drive down that hell hole in a car let alone a bike. Certain sections of our community do not pay any attention to other road users so bike riders wouldn't be given a second glance. Then if you actually manage to make it into work in one piece the chances of seeing your bike still chained in the bike shelter when you return is a long shot. Yet more Bradford pie in the sky rubbish.

Unfortunately the Bradford hills don't make for happy cycling.
Cyclists are going to need the stamina of an olympic marathon runner and legs like oak trees to negotiate them.
Bradford is the most unlikely place to promote cycling. Norfolk it ain't!

faxford wrote:
CYCLE IN BRADFORD!!! are you mad, I'd rather shallow fry my testicles than attempt to ride a pushiron down Leeds Rd, it's like a futuristic vidoe game attempting to drive down that hell hole in a car let alone a bike. Certain sections of our community do not pay any attention to other road users so bike riders wouldn't be given a second glance. Then if you actually manage to make it into work in one piece the chances of seeing your bike still chained in the bike shelter when you return is a long shot. Yet more Bradford pie in the sky rubbish.

Hahaha! Nice one!

"Roads will be safer" quote. In which part of Bradford does this apply? The idea of cycling lanes in Bradford is a ludicrous idea. First of all we are a very hilly city, no matter which way you go, enter or depart. Secondly certain sections of the motoring population in this city are shown on record as not being very good A lot are not even insured, taxed and even have a current licence. God forbid if you had a cycling accident it would probably take years to get any compensation. Cycling is a great idea but not in this city. What's in it for the council? And why don't they spend their time on all of those unfinished projects that everyone is talking about instead of creating new projects which are definitely not feasible. Great idea but not for here.

Bradford has a long history with cycling. We have some pros and ex pros living in the district such as Sid Barras, Tom Barras, Rob Jebb, some up and coming roadies in the Team GB, long established cylcing shops such as Whittakers, Paul Milnes and Aire Valley, Lamberts. We also have proud links with Dave Rayern and his legacy fund for supporitng young professionals - which is internationlaly famous.

We used to have annual criteriums in the city centre, the lap race from Wibsey to Queensbury and have formed part of the Milk Race and the Tour of Britain. Myra Shay for BMX.

As for no-one cycles here - I would suggest stading at Queensbury traffics lights, Ilkley traffic lights, Keighley roundabout ion any given Saturday or Sunday - loads of cyclists.

Moving on, yes, some cyclist are a pain on the road, but for every cyclist on the pavement are 1,000 motorist over the speed limit. Cycle lanes are basically recpeticles for broken glass, dead pigeons and blissfully unaware teenagers and parked cars. To be honest, if the roads were safe, we wouldf not need cycle lanes (which nobody is legally obliged to use).

Getting the Sky Rides cracking, linking in the to the popular Richard Dunn juniors sessions, using the fact that Ilkley and Keighley are cylcing meccasis a real opporutnity.

Maybe we should flatten the Odeon and build a velodrome?

Firstly no hill in Bradford is too big to dis-courage any average cyclist, any body that cycles regular will agree!

Secondly I commute by mountain bike from eccleshill to Lidget Green every day for training and fitness. On my route on bike or by car i have learnt that the highway code might as well be ripped up!

I am not a cyclist that thinks i can do whatever i want but i am a cyclist that exercises my freedom to protect my self against injury, death and bad driving. I ride my bike with caution as though i am going to be hit at any time, make myself visable and make my intentions clear to motorists about my next move.

I accept fellow cyclists to do the same when i am driving my car but i also give space to cyclists .

I also have no respect for cyclists that do not wear a helmet. The same as a motorist that likes to go a bonnet width over a stop line and ride on the clutch making intentions un clear.

And in response to cycling on the path, we will use roads where we have a clear run but please bear in mind half of the cycle lanes in bradford divert us onto the path!

from leaving lidget green, heading to town via thornton road and then into town i can use the path in sections and i am within the law to do this. you can cycle on a path as long as you have valid reason, example, ace star limousines double parking accross the cycle lane, then no provisions for a cyclist to navigate the roadworks through town. we have to do this to stay safe.

I will give way to pedestrians and this will have to do untill the cycle lanes we have are enforced more for parking and glass/ debris and the city becomes more cycle friendly.

"get over it!" wrote:
Firstly no hill in Bradford is too big to dis-courage any average cyclist, any body that cycles regular will agree!

Secondly I commute by mountain bike from eccleshill to Lidget Green every day for training and fitness. On my route on bike or by car i have learnt that the highway code might as well be ripped up!

I am not a cyclist that thinks i can do whatever i want but i am a cyclist that exercises my freedom to protect my self against injury, death and bad driving. I ride my bike with caution as though i am going to be hit at any time, make myself visable and make my intentions clear to motorists about my next move.

I accept fellow cyclists to do the same when i am driving my car but i also give space to cyclists .

I also have no respect for cyclists that do not wear a helmet. The same as a motorist that likes to go a bonnet width over a stop line and ride on the clutch making intentions un clear.

And in response to cycling on the path, we will use roads where we have a clear run but please bear in mind half of the cycle lanes in bradford divert us onto the path!

from leaving lidget green, heading to town via thornton road and then into town i can use the path in sections and i am within the law to do this. you can cycle on a path as long as you have valid reason, example, ace star limousines double parking accross the cycle lane, then no provisions for a cyclist to navigate the roadworks through town. we have to do this to stay safe.

I will give way to pedestrians and this will have to do untill the cycle lanes we have are enforced more for parking and glass/ debris and the city becomes more cycle friendly.

"And in response to cycling on the path, we will use roads where we have a clear run but please bear in mind half of the cycle lanes in bradford divert us onto the path!" There are indeed some pavements which also have a cycle lane Canal Rd and near the relief rd roundabout at Nab Wood are two examples, But the one's that I mentioned in an earlier post the riders were on the pavement adjacent to the cycle lanes and travelling in the right direction for the cycle lanes, In one case a Police Volvo estate went by but the occupants were too busy eating to be bothered, I do know people who have been ridden into on pavements.
I fully agree that some motorists can be dangerous to cyclists (in the old days motorists had usually worked their way up from motorcycles and fully understood how to drive among two wheeled vehicles but these days they go straight to driving cars, often while still at school).

One good thing about his thread, is that nobody has wittered about cyclists not paying road tax.

Hopefully the message that nobody has paid road tax since the 30's and that we all pay for the roads out of general taxation is getting thorugh.

One good thing about his thread, is that nobody has wittered about cyclists not paying road tax.

Hopefully the message that nobody has paid road tax since the 30's and that we all pay for the roads out of general taxation is getting through.

I actually cycled to Bradford Interchange from Manningham today, and I've commuted by bike before along Manchester Road, so I feel qualified to say something.

First of all: those who are all too quick to disparage a 'certain community' might like to know that I've only ever been honked at twice: once by an impatient member of this certain community, once by an elderly non-member. In fact, near the Oastler area, one member of this community even enthusiastically invited me to have a drag race (which I politely declined). And when I stupidly turned without indicating, another of them (I use 'another of them' with heavy irony) patiently waited for me, instead of charging across. So enough of this nonsense about the 'community'.

Secondly, the roads are not perfect but, if you have a decent bike, not horrific! I cycled along Manningham Lane and it wasn't too bad. But the start of St Mary's Road is diabolical, and should be sorted out.

There are careless drivers (indeed from the 'community') but if you're polite enough, like I was to the driver who pulled out a bit too much in the cycle lane, there shouldn't be any problems. As vulnerable road users, I think the onus should also be on us to ensure our safety by not cycling like idiots. At any rate, I've been surprised that Bradford's drivers are pretty good and don't really cause much concern.

But I wish that traffic laws were better enforced: what's with BMW X5s cruising in the city centre (a zone specifically allocated to buses, bikes and taxis)? And dealing with speeding cars would be a nice bonus.

I should also say that it matters at what time you're cycling....rush hours are fine...This is probably crucial.

As for the hills: save up money, buy a decent bike with a compact/triple groupset, or just ****ing do some working out! Or just take it slowly! I'm asthmatic and can do it: so can you! And there's Lister Park where you can easily practice.

And thank you nevis the cat for pre-emptively stopping any road tax zombies from regurgitating the stale old rubbish their Lord and Saviour Clarkson feeds them!

Given that the standard of driving in Bradford is as bad as anywhere and worse than many places - this is lunacy. Keep off the roads if your are a cyclist, you will die. The only safe place for cycling is on some of the superb tracks that there are across the country, in many cases on disused railway tracks which have been adapted. Also Bradford is full of hills - what fun is that on a leisurely cycle?

"Also Bradford is full of hills - what fun is that on a leisurely cycle?"

Plenty of fun. :)

Easy solution to the misuse of cycle lanes, don't narrow the road, widen the pavement!
Secondly re the old road tax chestnut. It may well be true that nobody has paid road tax since the thirties, it's just that motorists have always paid more tax, and therefore, following your own argument, have a greater right to use the facilities they have paid for!

"get over it!" wrote:
Firstly no hill in Bradford is too big to dis-courage any average cyclist, any body that cycles regular will agree! Secondly I commute by mountain bike from eccleshill to Lidget Green every day for training and fitness. On my route on bike or by car i have learnt that the highway code might as well be ripped up! I am not a cyclist that thinks i can do whatever i want but i am a cyclist that exercises my freedom to protect my self against injury, death and bad driving. I ride my bike with caution as though i am going to be hit at any time, make myself visable and make my intentions clear to motorists about my next move. I accept fellow cyclists to do the same when i am driving my car but i also give space to cyclists . I also have no respect for cyclists that do not wear a helmet. The same as a motorist that likes to go a bonnet width over a stop line and ride on the clutch making intentions un clear. And in response to cycling on the path, we will use roads where we have a clear run but please bear in mind half of the cycle lanes in bradford divert us onto the path! from leaving lidget green, heading to town via thornton road and then into town i can use the path in sections and i am within the law to do this. you can cycle on a path as long as you have valid reason, example, ace star limousines double parking accross the cycle lane, then no provisions for a cyclist to navigate the roadworks through town. we have to do this to stay safe. I will give way to pedestrians and this will have to do untill the cycle lanes we have are enforced more for parking and glass/ debris and the city becomes more cycle friendly.

No respect for fellow cyclists eh? I ride around 150 miles per week and don't wear a helmet - I have been riding for much of the last 25 years. I don't have much time for a lot of the cyclists in the district whose riding skills are frankly poor... but I respect anyone prepared to get out on a bike and have some exercise. Cyclists don't pay road tax and many can't afford to insure their bikes either - let's kick off another debate.

"Secondly re the old road tax chestnut. It may well be true that nobody has paid road tax since the thirties, it's just that motorists have always paid more tax, and therefore, following your own argument, have a greater right to use the facilities they have paid for!"

A pleasure to respond to you. Do the rich therefore have more right to this country than those who pay no tax - or in fact, claim benefits? Or should men have more right to the roads than women, since they on average earn more and pay - and have paid more - tax? Or whites vs. blacks? In fact, evidence would suggest that cyclists are on average wealthier and therefore pay more tax! And what kind of tax measure are you going for: total tax paid or tax per person? Although the car-bike distinction seems less arbitrary than the other ones mentioned, it doesn't seem that decisive after all. Why not go for the variable that has the strongest correlation (see what I have to say on how the roads are funded)?


What do you mean by 'right to the roads'? More space? Priority? But why should the amount contributed by each user be the most important thing (as your tone seems to suggest)? Why not other considerations, like safety? Or benefiting the environment? Or health?
And what of the cyclists who happen to be drivers as well? Are their rights immediately forfeited the moment the mount their steely steed?
I'd just like to point out that roads are public goods in the truest sense - they're funded out of general taxation - which means everyone who has paid tax (i.e. everyone) - has paid for the roads and is entitled to them. They aren't - and have never been - things like gyms (private goods) which are rival goods, blah blah blah. I wish this silly, one-dimensional right-wing mentality where people are valued predominantly according to their ability to contribute to the government's coffers would end!

targumtrowes wrote:
"Secondly re the old road tax chestnut. It may well be true that nobody has paid road tax since the thirties, it's just that motorists have always paid more tax, and therefore, following your own argument, have a greater right to use the facilities they have paid for!"

A pleasure to respond to you. Do the rich therefore have more right to this country than those who pay no tax - or in fact, claim benefits? Or should men have more right to the roads than women, since they on average earn more and pay - and have paid more - tax? Or whites vs. blacks? In fact, evidence would suggest that cyclists are on average wealthier and therefore pay more tax! And what kind of tax measure are you going for: total tax paid or tax per person? Although the car-bike distinction seems less arbitrary than the other ones mentioned, it doesn't seem that decisive after all. Why not go for the variable that has the strongest correlation (see what I have to say on how the roads are funded)?


What do you mean by 'right to the roads'? More space? Priority? But why should the amount contributed by each user be the most important thing (as your tone seems to suggest)? Why not other considerations, like safety? Or benefiting the environment? Or health?
And what of the cyclists who happen to be drivers as well? Are their rights immediately forfeited the moment the mount their steely steed?
I'd just like to point out that roads are public goods in the truest sense - they're funded out of general taxation - which means everyone who has paid tax (i.e. everyone) - has paid for the roads and is entitled to them. They aren't - and have never been - things like gyms (private goods) which are rival goods, blah blah blah. I wish this silly, one-dimensional right-wing mentality where people are valued predominantly according to their ability to contribute to the government's coffers would end!

Glad to see you agree with my first point - it obviously fits with your view of life. If you wish to debate with me, at least quote me correctly.
Could you explain your comment re gyms, it's got me (and I suspect many others) completely baffled.
Where does your argument stand on toll roads - should cyclists be using them? and if so should they pay or do you also contend that they should be free as well.
As to your final point, nobody is being valued according to their ability to pay, this line of thought is however taken directly from comments made by those who appear to be pro-bike.
Your earlier post makes good points about the rules of the road not being enforced, I am totally with you when it comes to any car (not just BMW X5s) or van using bus and cycle lanes being fined, those who speed excessively should be prosecuted. In the same vein, cyclists who weave in and out of moving traffic, and those who cycle 3 and 4 abreast so they can talk to their chums should also be taken to task.

Rjonwilly wrote:

targumtrowes wrote: "Secondly re the old road tax chestnut. It may well be true that nobody has paid road tax since the thirties, it's just that motorists have always paid more tax, and therefore, following your own argument, have a greater right to use the facilities they have paid for!" A pleasure to respond to you. Do the rich therefore have more right to this country than those who pay no tax - or in fact, claim benefits? Or should men have more right to the roads than women, since they on average earn more and pay - and have paid more - tax? Or whites vs. blacks? In fact, evidence would suggest that cyclists are on average wealthier and therefore pay more tax! And what kind of tax measure are you going for: total tax paid or tax per person? Although the car-bike distinction seems less arbitrary than the other ones mentioned, it doesn't seem that decisive after all. Why not go for the variable that has the strongest correlation (see what I have to say on how the roads are funded)? What do you mean by 'right to the roads'? More space? Priority? But why should the amount contributed by each user be the most important thing (as your tone seems to suggest)? Why not other considerations, like safety? Or benefiting the environment? Or health? And what of the cyclists who happen to be drivers as well? Are their rights immediately forfeited the moment the mount their steely steed? I'd just like to point out that roads are public goods in the truest sense - they're funded out of general taxation - which means everyone who has paid tax (i.e. everyone) - has paid for the roads and is entitled to them. They aren't - and have never been - things like gyms (private goods) which are rival goods, blah blah blah. I wish this silly, one-dimensional right-wing mentality where people are valued predominantly according to their ability to contribute to the government's coffers would end!

Glad to see you agree with my first point - it obviously fits with your view of life. If you wish to debate with me, at least quote me correctly. Could you explain your comment re gyms, it's got me (and I suspect many others) completely baffled. Where does your argument stand on toll roads - should cyclists be using them? and if so should they pay or do you also contend that they should be free as well. As to your final point, nobody is being valued according to their ability to pay, this line of thought is however taken directly from comments made by those who appear to be pro-bike. Your earlier post makes good points about the rules of the road not being enforced, I am totally with you when it comes to any car (not just BMW X5s) or van using bus and cycle lanes being fined, those who speed excessively should be prosecuted. In the same vein, cyclists who weave in and out of moving traffic, and those who cycle 3 and 4 abreast so they can talk to their chums should also be taken to task.

Riding 3 or 4 abreast? Get real! You certainly don't see it on commuting routes into Bradford. On quiet country roads it might be a different matter but then the question could be asked why you couldn't cope given that two cyclists riding abreast take up the same amount of room as a horse rider. Despite living in a bike friendly country it is a pity that it hasn't rubbed off on you! BTW I don't understand what was meant about gyms or other comments by targumwhateverhisnam
e.

thecitygent wrote:

Rjonwilly wrote:

targumtrowes wrote: "Secondly re the old road tax chestnut. It may well be true that nobody has paid road tax since the thirties, it's just that motorists have always paid more tax, and therefore, following your own argument, have a greater right to use the facilities they have paid for!" A pleasure to respond to you. Do the rich therefore have more right to this country than those who pay no tax - or in fact, claim benefits? Or should men have more right to the roads than women, since they on average earn more and pay - and have paid more - tax? Or whites vs. blacks? In fact, evidence would suggest that cyclists are on average wealthier and therefore pay more tax! And what kind of tax measure are you going for: total tax paid or tax per person? Although the car-bike distinction seems less arbitrary than the other ones mentioned, it doesn't seem that decisive after all. Why not go for the variable that has the strongest correlation (see what I have to say on how the roads are funded)? What do you mean by 'right to the roads'? More space? Priority? But why should the amount contributed by each user be the most important thing (as your tone seems to suggest)? Why not other considerations, like safety? Or benefiting the environment? Or health? And what of the cyclists who happen to be drivers as well? Are their rights immediately forfeited the moment the mount their steely steed? I'd just like to point out that roads are public goods in the truest sense - they're funded out of general taxation - which means everyone who has paid tax (i.e. everyone) - has paid for the roads and is entitled to them. They aren't - and have never been - things like gyms (private goods) which are rival goods, blah blah blah. I wish this silly, one-dimensional right-wing mentality where people are valued predominantly according to their ability to contribute to the government's coffers would end!

Glad to see you agree with my first point - it obviously fits with your view of life. If you wish to debate with me, at least quote me correctly. Could you explain your comment re gyms, it's got me (and I suspect many others) completely baffled. Where does your argument stand on toll roads - should cyclists be using them? and if so should they pay or do you also contend that they should be free as well. As to your final point, nobody is being valued according to their ability to pay, this line of thought is however taken directly from comments made by those who appear to be pro-bike. Your earlier post makes good points about the rules of the road not being enforced, I am totally with you when it comes to any car (not just BMW X5s) or van using bus and cycle lanes being fined, those who speed excessively should be prosecuted. In the same vein, cyclists who weave in and out of moving traffic, and those who cycle 3 and 4 abreast so they can talk to their chums should also be taken to task.

Riding 3 or 4 abreast? Get real! You certainly don't see it on commuting routes into Bradford. On quiet country roads it might be a different matter but then the question could be asked why you couldn't cope given that two cyclists riding abreast take up the same amount of room as a horse rider. Despite living in a bike friendly country it is a pity that it hasn't rubbed off on you! BTW I don't understand what was meant about gyms or other comments by targumwhateverhisnam

e.

I only describe what I see when driving around, and no, most of my driving is not in the country it is in Bradford, particularly West and North Bradford. As for your assertion that it's fine to cycle 3 or 4 abreast on a country road not only breaks the law, but is a thoughtless idiotic, action which can only result in injury or worse. Finally Napoleon, can I suggest you get off your horse and check your facts before opening your mouth. It's rather presumptuous to intimate I am not bike friendly - where do you think I have been this morning?

Most cyclists are also drivers and know full well that riding 3 or 4 abreast is dangerous which is why experienced cyclists don't do it and yes, it would be foolish to do so. I certainly haven't seen this phenomenon in Bradford and it would be rare on country roads where two abreast is acceptable and can often be the norm. I wouldn't condone 3/4 abreast but don't see a problem with two abreast as I intimated in my posting. So what were you doing this morning, spreading tacks on cycle lanes? If you were a cyclist you wouldn't be making claims about riders going three or four abreast.

I'll stick to the motorbike, at least that way i know i can accelerate out of trouble when some random car driver fails to see me while at the same time being able to filter past those pesky queues at the lights, a door to door commute of 30 minutes (Bradford to Leeds centre) and i can park for free too.

Security word for the cyclists out there... Wash-room :D

Re Road tax!

Isnt road tax a general taxation?
I dont ride a bike because i am poor either, i ride to work so i dont have to sit for an hour not moving!

I am a motorist but choose not to drive to work as it can take an hour by car or 25 mins by bike using bike lanes.

I have a couple of cars and pay 800 quid a year road tax , yes i like my gas guzzlers but i refuse to sit not moving in city traffic!

Why should i have to pay some more for my bike seen as there is no carbon imission's!

when it snowed bad in december i heard about colleagues sitting on Legrams lane for 4/5 hours!

why?

I rode my bike home in half an hour.
whats wrong with walking? these people amaze me!

"get over it!" wrote:
Re Road tax!

Isnt road tax a general taxation?
I dont ride a bike because i am poor either, i ride to work so i dont have to sit for an hour not moving!

I am a motorist but choose not to drive to work as it can take an hour by car or 25 mins by bike using bike lanes.

I have a couple of cars and pay 800 quid a year road tax , yes i like my gas guzzlers but i refuse to sit not moving in city traffic!

Why should i have to pay some more for my bike seen as there is no carbon imission's!

when it snowed bad in december i heard about colleagues sitting on Legrams lane for 4/5 hours!

why?

I rode my bike home in half an hour.
whats wrong with walking? these people amaze me!

Probably the most sensible / honest post yet.

"Could you explain your comment re gyms, it's got me (and I suspect many others) completely baffled. Where does your argument stand on toll roads - should cyclists be using them? and if so should they pay or do you also contend that they should be free as well."


Sorry for my lack of clarity (and my noticeably brash opening style). Please ignore my comments about gyms; they were meant to highlight the difference between private/excludable goods and public/less than excludable goods. Your comments about toll roads left me completely stumped, until I read about why they exist. It seems that toll roads exist (in the UK at least) in order to reduce congestion, and the principle isn't about access rights: the charges I believe exist to deter people from using the certain roads (although they will certainly perform the function of maintaining the said roads). If roads were solely funded by the users then naturally anyone who uses them should pay for them (out of a sense of justice/fairness), but at the moment roads are funded out of general taxation, so the only 'fair' way to manage road usership seems to be to let whoever wants to use it use it - subject to reasonable qualifications, such as being road-worthy, and safe to oneself and other users, etc. As it stands, I believe that by the very definition of them cyclists should certainly be made to pay for toll roads. But not 60-70mph ones - in this case, though, considerations of safety and appropriateness apply.


I guess that I have to concede that cyclists aren't necessarily entitled to the roads by principle. But I also think that the status quo seems to be fair, since people who don't currently use the roads do/will benefit from them - such as old-aged pensioners, and people in the future. Likewise, it might seem hard to tax everyone who uses our roads, such as people on buses (although you could also argue that they could indirectly pay the tax through the bus fares).


But since roads are such general and 'universal' and 'timeless' goods, and since what we think 'road tax' is is actually related to the emissions of the car, I'd like to suggest that the whole discussion about 'access rights' is a bit of a red herring since the main motivation behind road taxation (by this I mean the taxation of road users) seems to be a desire to affect incentives and make people pay in proportion to the externalities they generate. And I think this seems about right.



My arguments are certainly incomplete, but hopefully they are more clear than my last ones.
At least this is the website I was informed by: http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-11132747