On 19 Sep 2015 at 5:18pm John Smith wrote:
I've just been for a walk down by the river at Southease and was delighted to see what looks like a proper cycle path crossing the road just to the west of the bridge. The northern part looks complete, while the southern stretch is obviously a work in progress. Does anyone know how far it goes? I've had a look on the internet but it isn't very clear.
On 19 Sep 2015 at 9:37pm KeenCyclist wrote:
Residents at Piddinghoe do not want it to carry along the riverfront (overlooking their gardens) so they are trying to divert it along the road in Piddinghoe (after the "boatyard"), through the town's narrow road down a single lane road for a farm and a sailing club parking lot at Piddinghoe lake and then back to the riverfront.
The designers of the path would prefer the safety of the riverfront approach, but I think they know they could spend more in court than building the path. So, I think they are looking at options.
So, basically, it is Nimbyism in Piddinghoe; and I will probably get sued for saying as much.
On 19 Sep 2015 at 11:14pm bumpkin wrote:
I think with that bit at piddinghoe, you do have to take into account the people living on the river front whose house it very close to the bank...the footpath has always gone around them and if they were to put the cycle path and associated with tarmaced path they'd have people actually cycling by their windows and through their gardens
On 20 Sep 2015 at 12:06am Belladonna wrote:
It's the egrets way and should be almost complete by Xmas, according to their latest newsletter. Apparently all the landowners en route are all supportive and the route is agreed. It's not clear from the map on their website where the path actually will run. The whole point is that it's a safe riverside route and if goes back up onto the road it will be disappointing
On 20 Sep 2015 at 12:07am Belladonna wrote:
The aim is eventually to be able to cycle along it from Lewes to Newhaven
On 20 Sep 2015 at 7:56am driver wrote:
it'll probably a total waste of tax payers money. like all the other cycle routes , it wont get used. apart from the odd cyclist who wishes to take the scenic route. because they wont be able to ride two or three abreast and hold the traffic up.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 9:37am John Smith wrote:
I knew perfectly well when I asked that some dolt would come along and complain about cyclists. I use the C7 frequently, and it's a terrible road for cyclists, narrow with frequent bends and several quite steep hills. So a cycle path which stays away from the dolts is hugely welcome, and actually the dolts will like it too because they can go back to treating the C7 like a racetrack without the hindrance of other perfectly legal road-users. I'm sure it will be very well used.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 1:03pm not another rat run wrote:
What a shame , Driver has got it wrong. i've witnessed lots of people using the southease part already and I hope the whole of egrtes way gets completed.I would not cycle on the C7 even if you paid me. driver,m I've also witnessed cyclists travelling two abreast and it normally turns out to be tourist/johny foreigner going to newhaven. Driver obviously thinks that cyclists should ride in the gutter so that he can own the road and beetle off to work. There are lots of cyclists who have indicated that they would use the Egrets way on a regular basis. People said that path between Newhaven and seaford wouldn't get used - cyclists are on it every day.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 1:15pm Grafter wrote:
I never understand the anti cycle path brigade.
1. Cyclists are usually tax paying drivers as well.
2. Adult cyclists are in general higher IQ and lower time preference than the mean. Therefore more likely to be paying more taxes and costing others less in health care due to seeing the implications of sedentary lifestyles.
3. Even if the above wasn't true surely they would be glad not to see us on " their" roads?
On 20 Sep 2015 at 4:24pm driver wrote:
yes because that one at ringmer is well used NOT!. oh and the one on the A27 firle road. on ya bike.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 4:38pm Tom wrote:
If there are more cycle routes locally I may take up cycling again. The roads around here are too busy and fast for safety. It's changed a lot in the past thirty years, both with the number of cars and cyclists. I've known too many cyclists who have been killed or badly injured by cars and lorries to risk cycling on the roads these days. The South East is just too congested these days. Shame, but being aggressive with cyclists and thinking that drivers have such exclusive rights to everything is dangerous. Cars and lorries can kill so drivers have to be responsible.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 5:39pm John Smith wrote:
I should certainly dust my bike down if the Egrets Way is completed. I may give it a try down to Southease before then. Nothing on god's earth would make me try to cycle along the C7, which is full of people of driver's ilk who really do seem to think that they own the road simply by virtue of paying a tax.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 5:55pm not another rat run wrote:
Driver, I'll agree with you about the Ringmer one - why the need when people used to cycle on the pavement opposite (there were rarely pedestrians on it) Complete waste.
As for the Firle one it good but it just suddenly stops in the middle of nowhere - if it had a decent finish point then there might be more of a take up.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 7:03pm Rik wrote:
Most of these schemes are paid for by developers and direct government grants and charities like sustrans rather than local tax payers. If they reduce car use that could lead to less expenditure on road mending etc.
Fitter people also reduces health costs and makes them happier.
The Firle route connects to Lewes, I cycled it last week. It also connects to Polegate. I don't understand your point that it runs out?
On 20 Sep 2015 at 7:40pm Driver wrote:
Someone has been posting using my name. I have been using "Driver" for some time; and am not responsible for any of the above posts.
I think we should be reminded that roads today are primarily for the motor traffic that moves the goods to the shops; and allows us to use cars that enable us to take our families to visit friends and relatives perhaps as much as 50 miles away in the same day. And also carry a weeks' shopping home.
Cyclists are much in a minority; but are allowed to use the roads by law. They are generally young and fit people. Very few actually cycle any distance to work, and cycling is generally a pleasure pursuit- which should not be encouraged further.
Probably at least half the population are unable to cycle due to being unfit or elderly, or just need to carry something on their journey and need to use a car or bus. They should be given priority.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 7:52pm Clifford wrote:
I'm sorry "Driver", you can't copyright the name. It isn't even a name, it it? Other people often use my name, they may even be now. It just adds to the pleasant confusion of this site.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 9:27pm John Smith wrote:
Are your views really very distinguishable from the other "drivers"? I don't think so. You seem to be equally as reactionary (and ill-informed) as the others.
"roads today are primarily for the motor traffic that moves the goods to the shops"
What, you mean the road's really yours and everyone else uses it at your discretion? Instead of sticking labels on everyone, and assigning them a place in a hierarchy (always lower than yours), how about living and letting live?
On 20 Sep 2015 at 9:40pm KeenCyclist wrote:
Belladonna - Why do you think it is NOT clear? The answer is they don't yet know. That is WHY I took the time to write my post so people would know about the problem with Piddinghoe.
Bumpkin, buy your logic; we should close the footpath on the downs behind the Neville estate, Landport and Malling. The land behind Piddinghoe has always been available to WALK along, so to prevent cyclists riding along (faster - less time to look in windows) seems a bit strange.
And finally, the serious cyclists (that are no longer just young people) will always stick to the C7 unless they are out fo a jolly with the kids.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 9:57pm AlanT wrote:
To get back to the original question - I took my bike to Rodmell yesterday and optimistically went through the gate and cycled along the path towards Lewes. Its a very nice path and so much more peaceful than any path that runs alongside a road - but - it only runs for about 400metres then there is another gate which you can pass through, but beyond it is unsurfaced. A sign says "this section of the path has been left unsurfaced at the request of the landowner". As it had rained the day before and cows had been walking there it was too soft and muddy for us to continue. I hope the landowner will change their mind in due course for if not I think it will be used only by mountain bikers who don't mind getting covered in mud, but it will be useless for commuters or anyone who wants to keep their clothes clean. To the south of the Rodmell road a new path is being created - equipment is there and the path stretches towards Piddnghoe but doesn't yet have its top surface.
On 20 Sep 2015 at 10:10pm Fred wrote:
If all cyclists are not going to use these privileged and costly routes, we should not have them. If there is a cycle path it should be an offence if the road is used.
On 21 Sep 2015 at 7:01am driver wrote:
strange!. your all diverting around the issues raised. why if there is a cycle route do cyclists not use it, like the ones mentioned. riding two/three abreast, I wont even start on traffic lights ect. I was driving up towards maresfield yesterday from uckfield (a very fast nit of road). and there they were again, three abreast swerving around all over the place. one of them very nearly ended up under a sainburys lorry, if it wasn't for the reactions of the lorry driver, he would have. he didn't have a clue what was behind him. when you take your driving test, you will fail if you don't use your mirrors or are unaware of what is around you. cyclist's!! NEARLY ALL the ones I come across are only interested in forward vision. they are danger. yet if there is a cycle route right next to the road ( which has cost a pretty penny) do they use it.... OooHH NOOOO. instead they just take the same old view " the road isn't just yours ya know" yes I do know, how about you use it lawfully and correctly. and not be a danger to yourself and other road users.
On 21 Sep 2015 at 9:03am old timer wrote:
I have seen drivers risk their own lives and others on many,many occasions on the C7 - including my own! How a fatal accident has not happened is one of life's mysteries. Overtaking cyclists on blind corners is habitual, as is blatant bullying and intimidation by other drivers when you refuse to play the game.
On 21 Sep 2015 at 9:25am John Smith wrote:
Thanks, AlanT: that was exactly what I wanted to know. And actually it answers the question so many of the roadhogs ask: why don't all cyclists use the paths. If there are gates to open and close, poor surfaces and breaks in the route then the paths won't get used. It's obvious to me that a fast flat tarmac path running from Lewes to Newhaven would encourage people to commute by bike rather than driving to the station, but it's equally obvious that if their journey is going to be interrupted and impeded then the serious cyclists will return to the road because it's faster.
Riding two abreast is a defence measure, because there are a lot of idiots in charge of motor vehicles who reckon that a few inches is plenty of clearance when overtaking. It's actually recommended in the Highway Code...
Check it out here »
On 21 Sep 2015 at 3:18pm Driver wrote:
Alan T- all cycle routes- and the use of public roads- are FREE to cyclists. Motor vehicle users- the vast majority of road users- pay about five times in various taxes to what is spent on the roads. The other 80% goes to subsidise public transport, the NHS, benefits; and general government spending.
You should be grateful that the odd million or so is spent on dedicated paths for your leisure activity, at no cost to yourself.
On 21 Sep 2015 at 4:00pm ar10642 wrote:
Driver, you pay to use a motor vehicle on the public road, and it is your choice to do so. There is nothing to stop you, or anyone else, from cycling for free on them yourself. The offer is open to everyone, so stop acting hard done by. If you don't want to do that, you could buy an electric car, you don't pay VED or fuel taxes on those.
The fact remains that if there is a useful, well surfaced cycle path that is an actual better alternative to the road, then people will probably use it. If it's a poor surface, is circuitous, slow route or stops abruptly, then people won't.
In either case cyclists are allowed to use the public road whether you like it or not. Not all cycle journeys are for leisure, and not all car journeys are important either. And since it's not an exclusive club and cyclists apparently have it so good, why not join them?
If the Egrets way has a decent surface for all (or most) of its length, I'd love to use it, looks like a nice route.
On 22 Sep 2015 at 7:51pm AlanT wrote:
Driver - I don't know why you picked out me to point out that cycle paths are free to users, I hadn't said otherwise. However to suggest that car tax more than pays for the roads is very doubtful. Car tax, petrol duty, general taxation and vat all go in to the same pot and the government picks what itbwhat to spend frok the general pot. As a cyclist and car driver I pay all these as do almost all cyclists. In addition I pay a monthly direct debit to Sustrans to help them build cycle paths.
Those who think roads are built for cars only should get some perspective: When there was only human feet or horses, roads were muddy and full of holes. It was only when bicycles came along, the Cyclist Touring Club was formed and it lobbied parliament to tarmac the roads to make things safer for cyclists. Thus tarmaced roads were introduced before car ownership was at all common. Our roads are called 'the public highway' for good reason -they are open to the public whether they be on foot, on a horse, on a bike, in a wheelchair and in a motor vehicle. Only motorways were designed specifically for motor vehicles , the rest are for all of us..