On Wed 19 Aug at 11:45am Ferret wrote:
Re. lack of cycling prohibition signs in North Court: I've had a response of sorts from someone called Lynda Hill of ESCC's Road Safety Team, which basically says someone will look into it, but don't get your hopes up as they get 5,000 "pieces of correspondence" re safety issues, and that barely 5% merit any action. And not to expect any further updates on the matter. I think this reveals the contempt that these people have for the general public, doesn't it?
On Wed 19 Aug at 3:57pm Formerly AC-T wrote:
It makes me wonder just what we're paying the 5th highest council tax in the country for, to be honest.
On Wed 19 Aug at 5:16pm Mark wrote:
Perhaps suppressing the use of bicycles isn't a major priority for them?
On Wed 19 Aug at 5:37pm Ferret wrote:
The request was for clearer signage for a prohibition that apparently already exists, or to scrap the prohibition, so that there is no confusion. At the moment, some cyclists ride through North Court to Cliffe High Street because there's no sign at the brewery end, whereas there was one at the Cliffe High Street end, at least when I last checked a week or two ago.
On Wed 19 Aug at 11:16pm Basil wrote:
Mark wrote: 'Perhaps suppressing the use of bicycles isn't a major priority for them?'
Perhaps nothing is a major priority for them. Perhaps the response to any suggestion or complaint is, 'Let's see how we can get rid of this.'
On Fri 21 Aug at 9:18am The Old Mayor wrote:
What even makes you even consider cyclists would take any notice of a sign. They sail through the stop traffic lights in the bottleneck with impunity ! Adults ride on the pavements, and don't use the cycle lane on the Brighton road,
On Fri 21 Aug at 10:03am Ferret wrote:
Dear Mayor, I'll try to answer your questions although I'm sure I won't be able to change your opinion of cyclists in general. The vast majority of cyclists are law-abiding citizens, who wouldn't dream of going against a "No Cycling" or "Cyclists Dismount" sign, or a red light, or ride on the pavement. I started this enquiry in response to comments about North Court cycling being prohibited, only to find that there is no sign saying that. It's no surprise that there is confusion.
As for using "the cycle lane on the Brighton road", I presume you mean the shared use path from near the prison towards Brighton. This path is inadequate for anything other than leisure cycling, certainly unsuitable for road cyclists who want to travel fast. Such cyclists are perfectly entitled to use the road, just as they are on the road from Earwig Corner to Ringmer.
Cue all the usual remarks about road tax, helmets, insurance, hi-vis jackets etc etc...
On Sat 22 Aug at 8:56am Unconvinced wrote:
Sorry Ferret but my observations of cycling in Lewes on a brief visit to the centre last Monday suggest completely the opposite ("the vast majority of cyclists are law-abiding")
1. Cyclist riding through North Court in direction of Cliffe High Street (I have a certain sympathy here as the Tesco to high street direction lacks a No Cycling sign). I cannot agree with your suggestion that the cycling restriction should be removed - the footpath under the shop archway is narrow and cyclists emerging blind into Cliffe High Street is a danger to pedestrians.
2. On Monday last there were road works in Cliffe High Street so the road was closed to all traffic, however this did not stop a cyclist going from Cliffe Bridge past Bill's who simply rode on the footpath to avoid the Road Closed sign!
3. Heading along Friars Walk past All Saints I encountered a cyclist riding in the opposite direction (towards the town centre) on the pavement.
Far from being law-abiding, my recent experience suggests the very opposite - that a significant number have a total disregard for the law and simply do whatever is convenient to them at the time. I also find it rather ironic that activists have painted Cycle symbols on Station Road. Cyclist 3 clearly did not think they applied to him - cycling uphill was clearly too much effort!
On Sat 22 Aug at 10:03am Ferret wrote:
I agree with you entirely on your first point. I'm not in favour of removing the restriction on cycling for mention, although cyclists are generally careful to avoid collisions with pedestrians, for instance on the cycle path between Tesco and the brewery which is very narrow in places.
On point 2, the road closure obviously applied to motorised vehicles, not to pedestrians. The cyclist should have dismounted and walked his/her bike past the obstruction. If there was no sign specifically forbidding cycling, there's no reason for not going past it, just as there was no reason for pedestrians to make a long detour.
There is no excuse for cycling the wrong way down a one way street. The route to Cliffe via Pinwell Lane is not signposted and clearly not known by many, including locals. I always use that route, carefully of course.
But really, is it really necessary to condemn all cyclists because of the dodgy behaviour of a few? Do we condemn pedestrians because a few don't observe social distancing rules, or some walk down the middle of the shared use path, or step out in front of cyclists without looking in Cliffe High Street? Of course not!
On Sun 23 Aug at 9:05am Unconvinced wrote:
A rather interesting interpretation of a Road Closed sign - it does not apply to cyclists because it does not specifically mention them! I would read such a sign as applying to all users of the carriageway (cars, vans, cyclists, horses etc). It does not apply to pedestrians because they are users of the adjacent pavement. This is so typical of the cycling community who demand more and more access and try to challenge long-established laws which they now feel inconvenience them (such as the prohibition of cycles on pavements). I am also intrigued to see that we now have multiple classes of cyclists who need to be accommodated in different ways - the leisure cyclist and the road cyclist (will we soon need to add the electric bike cyclist as another group?) Does a road closed sign apply to road cyclists and not to leisure cyclists or does their need to get from A to B as fast as possible trump all?
On a more conciliatory note - where is the sense in allowing 2-way cycling on Cliffe High Street and also cobbling the carriageway? This just encourages cyclists to ride on the block paved pavement. How about a campaign to provide a bike-friendly surface (either replacing the whole cobbled carriageway or just along the edges of the road)?
On Sun 23 Aug at 10:09am Ferret wrote:
Are you saying that according to your interpretation of road traffic law, the Highway Code, local bylaws and any other governing principle, that it is expressly forbidden for cyclists to dismount and to walk their bicycles past the road closed sign, on the pavement? This is news to me!
Your "concilatory note" is no less anti-cyclist, since it implies that all cyclists avoid the cobbles and choose to ride on the pavement, and that the two way cycling encourages this.This, I'm afraid, is absolute nonsense.
And of course there are different sub-groups of bicycle users, just as there are distinct sub-groups of pedestrians: strolling sightseers, purposeful striders on a mission, joggers etc.
But if you prefer to think of cyclists as one single species, separate from the rest of humanity, instead of what they really are: normal people who usually also drive cars, who are pedestrians themselves much of the time, and who even occasionally use public transport, that's your privilege.
Get a bike and discover the joy of it, or have you got a problem that prevents that option and causes you to despise those that can, and do?
On Sun 23 Aug at 2:47pm Tom Pain wrote:
What about the aesthetic dimension? I seem to remember Norman Baker had a lot of support for his attempt to clear some of the clutter of street furniture,as it's amusingly known. There's more signage polluting our often picturesque streets than one can notice without being dangerously distracted from watching the road ahead. And now to use a favourite device of certain posters,with great relish~ I suppose you don't care about that.
On Sun 23 Aug at 5:49pm Ferret wrote:
A very good point, TP. I'm simply trying, as a keen cyclist, to remove a bone of contention which crops up on occasions on this forum, and to remove all doubt in the minds of all North Court users. Is this alteration likely to offend you?
On Sun 23 Aug at 7:13pm Tom Pain wrote:
Of course it is!
On Sun 23 Aug at 7:18pm Ferret wrote:
Ooh you anarchist, you!
On Wed 26 Aug at 12:05pm Basil wrote:
I always enjoy these cycling arguments. It's like when you criticise a Green you get a response that shows the puritanical authoritarian lurking below the smiling face.