Landmark bridge takes shape in Bradford (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

whatever happened to cycling proficiency? i seem to remember being taught how to ride safely. and that included corners, so why do cyclists these days need nanny's to help them across a road with traffic lights? they have cycle lanes, now cycle bridges, spaces at the front of traffic lights, but NO cycle taxes or cycle insurance, why not?

How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

The Victorians would be rolling in their graves that we seem to find this newsworthy. Pathetic is what it really is.

johnhem wrote:
whatever happened to cycling proficiency? i seem to remember being taught how to ride safely. and that included corners, so why do cyclists these days need nanny's to help them across a road with traffic lights? they have cycle lanes, now cycle bridges, spaces at the front of traffic lights, but NO cycle taxes or cycle insurance, why not?

"Whatever happened to cycling proficiency? i seem to remember being taught how to ride safely. and that included corners, so why do cyclists these days need nanny's to help them across a road with traffic lights?" Because Cyclists doing all they should to be safe doesn't necessarily mean they are safe, especially in a City with such a high volume of uninsured drivers who risk little. In Nations and Regions with added features, the rates are much lower than here in the UK. There are times when Bicycles need assistance to make life easier for all, why shouldn't public money be spent on that?

"They have cycle lanes, now cycle bridges, spaces at the front of traffic lights, but NO cycle taxes or cycle insurance, why not?" Well, Car tax hasn't existed for years. If you want to avoid 'Vehicle Emissions Duty', just get a nice green car, simple.

On cycle insurance, European nations have trialed this in the past. The good cyclists pay a heavy price, while the bad ones don't pay a penny. The system costs silly amounts more to adequately police than what the licensing scheme would bring in the first place (think how oddly done the TV License scheme is, except without a database). It sounds like a good idea in principle, but it really isn't practical.

webess wrote:
How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

"Bradford Council has worked with Sustrans on the project, which is being paid for by the Big Lottery Fund after the charity secured £50 million in a vote."
It isn't.

Albion. wrote:

webess wrote:
How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

"Bradford Council has worked with Sustrans on the project, which is being paid for by the Big Lottery Fund after the charity secured £50 million in a vote."
It isn't.

You can only spend a pound once and the council could have spent the money more appropriately.
You don't need to be genius to think of possible contenders - eg turning the Westfield site into a temporary car park would boost the city more than this white, or should I say red elephant.

Albion. wrote:

webess wrote: How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

"Bradford Council has worked with Sustrans on the project, which is being paid for by the Big Lottery Fund after the charity secured £50 million in a vote." It isn't.

Sustrans is thoroughly discredited since its involvement in the Great Northern Trail to nowhere. A complete waste of money and until they sort that out they should not be allowed anywhere near Bradford.

Apollo wrote:

Albion. wrote:

webess wrote: How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

"Bradford Council has worked with Sustrans on the project, which is being paid for by the Big Lottery Fund after the charity secured £50 million in a vote." It isn't.

Sustrans is thoroughly discredited since its involvement in the Great Northern Trail to nowhere. A complete waste of money and until they sort that out they should not be allowed anywhere near Bradford.

I totally agree!

webess wrote:

Albion. wrote:

webess wrote:
How come the council are wasting money on cyclists with schemes such as this bridge but are waging war on the motorist?

"Bradford Council has worked with Sustrans on the project, which is being paid for by the Big Lottery Fund after the charity secured £50 million in a vote."
It isn't.

You can only spend a pound once and the council could have spent the money more appropriately.
You don't need to be genius to think of possible contenders - eg turning the Westfield site into a temporary car park would boost the city more than this white, or should I say red elephant.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean, are you saying that the council could have kept this money and spent it however they wished?
By the way, I was never in favour of the bridge.

I think what he is saying is that Lottery Funding is always what they call matched funding.

If you get £50m from the Lottery it is based on the fact that another £50m will have to come from elsewhere.

Apollo wrote:
I think what he is saying is that Lottery Funding is always what they call matched funding.

If you get £50m from the Lottery it is based on the fact that another £50m will have to come from elsewhere.

Very true but Sustrans is a charity and it doesn't give any detail here of it's funding for this particular project.
Unless of course someone else knows the details?
Obviously local councils have to have involvement whether or not.

Apollo wrote:
I think what he is saying is that Lottery Funding is always what they call matched funding.

If you get £50m from the Lottery it is based on the fact that another £50m will have to come from elsewhere.

Do you mean it cost £100m?
I'm horrified at the £50m in the T&A article and you say it is double.

I believe this scheme cost around £15m and the £50m quoted was the national fund available to councils.

However, it's still taxpayer's money that seems to have been spent on a white (sorry, red) elephant. At a time when the council are preaching about sustainability they knocked down a perfectly good bridge (that nobody seemed to use) and replaced it.

I hope if this bridge is a success, they'll get raise the ridiculous 30mph limit as there shouldn't be any pedestrians anywhere near the carriageway. I somehow doubt it from the numbers of people I see jumping the central barrier every day.

Joedavid wrote:

Apollo wrote: I think what he is saying is that Lottery Funding is always what they call matched funding. If you get £50m from the Lottery it is based on the fact that another £50m will have to come from elsewhere.

Do you mean it cost £100m? I'm horrified at the £50m in the T&A article and you say it is double.

Why? - the pond cost double what was ever reported?

Albion. wrote:

Apollo wrote: I think what he is saying is that Lottery Funding is always what they call matched funding. If you get £50m from the Lottery it is based on the fact that another £50m will have to come from elsewhere.

Very true but Sustrans is a charity and it doesn't give any detail here of it's funding for this particular project. Unless of course someone else knows the details? Obviously local councils have to have involvement whether or not.

I think you mean Sustrans is registered as a charity.

The article states that the funding came after a public vote on a TV show, which in turn came from the Big Lottery Fund.

I'm not 100% sure but I'm guessing therefore it's not tax money but money from lottery tickets and proceeds?

Suggests so here: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Big_Lottery
_Fund

AidyF wrote:

johnhem wrote:
whatever happened to cycling proficiency? i seem to remember being taught how to ride safely. and that included corners, so why do cyclists these days need nanny's to help them across a road with traffic lights? they have cycle lanes, now cycle bridges, spaces at the front of traffic lights, but NO cycle taxes or cycle insurance, why not?

"Whatever happened to cycling proficiency? i seem to remember being taught how to ride safely. and that included corners, so why do cyclists these days need nanny's to help them across a road with traffic lights?" Because Cyclists doing all they should to be safe doesn't necessarily mean they are safe, especially in a City with such a high volume of uninsured drivers who risk little. In Nations and Regions with added features, the rates are much lower than here in the UK. There are times when Bicycles need assistance to make life easier for all, why shouldn't public money be spent on that?

"They have cycle lanes, now cycle bridges, spaces at the front of traffic lights, but NO cycle taxes or cycle insurance, why not?" Well, Car tax hasn't existed for years. If you want to avoid 'Vehicle Emissions Duty', just get a nice green car, simple.

On cycle insurance, European nations have trialed this in the past. The good cyclists pay a heavy price, while the bad ones don't pay a penny. The system costs silly amounts more to adequately police than what the licensing scheme would bring in the first place (think how oddly done the TV License scheme is, except without a database). It sounds like a good idea in principle, but it really isn't practical.

if cyclists are not safe on the city's roads keep them off them. why should my money be spent on cycles? i pay road tax which has not disappeared at all, not emmission tax. i have an almost zero emissions car but can't avoid road tax. i have to insure my car, but the idiot on his bike can carry on knocking people over when they swing off the toad onto a path (usually to avoid red lights) or carry on damaging cars with scratches down the sides and broken wing mirrors yet i have to lose my no-claims bonus to get a £200/£500 re-spray. not to mention when they claim against you for knocking them off their bike with stupid lane changes etc. if its expensive to police then charge enough for it like they do with car tax/insurance.

johnhem said 'carry on damaging cars with scratches down the sides and broken wing mirrors yet i have to lose my no-claims bonus to get a £200/£500 re-spray. not to mention when they claim against you for knocking them off their bike with stupid lane changes etc.'

Have you thought about driving more carefully and allowing for the "cyclist's wobble"? I do hundreds of miles a week and haven't hit a cyclist yet. Possibly because I try very hard not to.

A rollercoaster across Manchester Road would have brought more tourists in. We could have had a really long one that turned into a log flume as it hit the Puddle in the Middle.

Sorry, I think I mean Park at the Heart.

Every single comment on this page is absolutely inaccurate.

The bridge has not cost £50m. The £50m which ITV viewers choose to give to Sustrans was for a range of projects around the UK, of which the bridge over Manchester Road is just one of them.

Bradford Council have not paid a penny towards this project.

Please get your facts right before commenting.

http://www.sustrans.
org.uk/what-we-do/co
nnect2/schemes/yorks
hire-and-humberside/
bradford-living-stre
ets-manchester-road-
bridge

Reality001 wrote:
Every single comment on this page is absolutely inaccurate.

The bridge has not cost £50m. The £50m which ITV viewers choose to give to Sustrans was for a range of projects around the UK, of which the bridge over Manchester Road is just one of them.

Bradford Council have not paid a penny towards this project.

Please get your facts right before commenting.

http://www.sustrans.

org.uk/what-we-do/co

nnect2/schemes/yorks

hire-and-humberside/

bradford-living-stre

ets-manchester-road-

bridge

No, mine are entirely accurate. Johnhem should watch where he is going. And a rollercoaster would be a fine attraction. Come now, Reality001, you can't say I am wrong!