# Cyclists don't count as road users, argues Chris Grayling transport secretary



## User16390 (12 Jan 2017)

Looks like Chris Grayling needs to read the Highway Code.

He made a statement today _"where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes,”_ and then said _"And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users, the users of the roads. It’s fairly straightforward, to be honest.”_

What a tool.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ount-as-road-users-argues-transport-secretary


----------



## Flying Dodo (12 Jan 2017)

I was going to say, someone shoot him, but that's not a reasoned, responsible comment.


----------



## ianrauk (12 Jan 2017)

Not even worth of a comment.

Oh yes it is.

Shut up you div.


----------



## HLaB (12 Jan 2017)

What part of Transport doesn't the idiot understand, when I last checked bikes were a mode of transport


----------



## Drago (12 Jan 2017)

Did he door another cyclist during the interview?


----------



## fossyant (12 Jan 2017)

God help us. Another plonker in a high powered job


----------



## mustang1 (12 Jan 2017)

Who's Chris grayling? Actually I still don't care. Why do any of you lot?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (12 Jan 2017)

mustang1 said:


> Who's Chris grayling? Actually I still don't care. Why do any of you lot?


He's the guy who thought prisoners shouldn't have access to books, I think. And look how prisons have thrived since.....


----------



## Bazzer (12 Jan 2017)

FFS.
If you are going to be Government minister, at least get a grasp of the brief.


----------



## raleighnut (12 Jan 2017)

Is it because we don't pay 'road tax'.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (12 Jan 2017)

raleighnut said:


> Is it because we don't pay 'road tax'.


Punitive segregation and he doesn't like books. Difficult to read about the law and history with the latter affliction. Less able than Gove. No more attractive.


----------



## iwantanewbike (12 Jan 2017)

Also condones drink driving

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...e-driving-fine-out-of-touch-a7460936.html?amp


----------



## MichaelW2 (12 Jan 2017)

Trucks are bigger than cars and pay more road tax. Trucks even use more road than cars. Trucks are real roadusers.


----------



## HLaB (12 Jan 2017)

mustang1 said:


> Who's Chris grayling? Actually I still don't care. Why do any of you lot?


Because he's in charge of something which is important to most people 'Transport'.


----------



## winjim (12 Jan 2017)

User said:


> I might have argued this before but, if you campaign for segregated facilities, the potential consequence is that you create the opportunity for other people delegitimising our road use.


Please feel free to argue it repeatedly and vociferously.


----------



## mjr (12 Jan 2017)

User said:


> I might have argued this before but, if you campaign for segregated facilities, the potential consequence is that you create the opportunity for other people delegitimising our road use.


Bull plop. He's talking about cycle lanes, not even protected stuff. He probably thinks buses aren't road users either because they have lanes.


----------



## mjr (12 Jan 2017)

Flying Dodo said:


> I was going to say, someone shoot him, but that's not a reasoned, responsible comment.


Run him over? I don't mind with which mode of transport


----------



## mr messy (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Run him over? I don't mind with which mode of transport


In a Toyota Pious fitted with underbody antitheft spikes coated in dog poo sound ok?


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

mr messy said:


> In a Toyota Pious fitted with underbody antitheft spikes coated in dog poo sound ok?


Sounds OK but does that qualify for the current electric vehicles incentives?


----------



## Fab Foodie (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> I might have argued this before but, if you campaign for segregated facilities, the potential consequence is that you create the opportunity for other people delegitimising our road use.


This^^^^

Unforseen consequences and all that....


----------



## mustang1 (13 Jan 2017)

HLaB said:


> Because he's in charge of something which is important to most people 'Transport'.


Had no idea (I have little idea about most things in life). I wonder if he has some qualification with transport planning or some such thing. Makes me think of a saying:

Those who should manage, don't want to.
Those who want to manage, shouldn't.

Edit: of course the clue is in the title about who this dude is.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Jan 2017)

So, he's opened his mouth and confirmed he's an idiot but that hardly makes him unique in Westminster...
Besides, since when has any actual knowledge about your portfolio been mandatory for a government minister? Transport in particular has always been a stepping stone brief.


----------



## subaqua (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> I might have argued this before but, if you campaign for segregated facilities, the potential consequence is that you create the opportunity for other people delegitimising our road use.



And the segregationists don't see that. All they see is 5 yr olds tootling along embankment on a Sunday , which is nice, but akin to a sticking plaster on a severed leg.


----------



## Drago (13 Jan 2017)

"Chris Grayling? What a chump!"


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

Fab Foodie said:


> This^^^^
> 
> Unforseen consequences and all that....


Hardly unforeseen. It's a known risk since at least the 1930s. "Get orf moi roads" was in the kipper manifesto for 2010 and Grayling is only once removed.


----------



## Bollo (13 Jan 2017)

Drago said:


> "Chris Grayling? What a chump!"
> View attachment 182832


A double Godwin!? Say it isn't so, Drago?


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2017)

NorthernDave said:


> So, he's opened his mouth and confirmed he's an idiot but that hardly makes him unique in Westminster...
> Besides, since when has any actual knowledge about your portfolio been mandatory for a government minister? Transport in particular has always been a stepping stone brief.


With a career that's encompassed Shadow Home Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Leader of the House, it's a stepping-stone backwards for him.


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Any need for segregation is an admission of failure.


Motorways exist. Therefore, motoring has failed. But I'd be happy if we make cycling fail to the same high levels as motoring is currently failing.



User said:


> Most country roads do not have pavements


Most country roads should be filtered (gated, resident/access only) rather than segregated.


----------



## Spinney (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Most country roads should be filtered (gated, resident/access only) rather than segregated.


Why???
Some are major, as Adrian pointed out. But the ones that are not are still routes between villages and provide access to the countryside. Gating them would prevent cyclists/walkers/horse riders using them as well as motor traffic. And would resident access only apply to all traffic (including bikes) as well as motors?


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2017)

Whatever the merits of the (extremely well-rehearsed) arguments about bike lanes, I suspect that Grayling is simply an ignorant nincompoop. There is, after all, a heck of a lot of evidence pointing in that direction.


----------



## jonny jeez (13 Jan 2017)

Props to @User.

Segregation is not the answer. This is just one of the reasons why.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## broadway (13 Jan 2017)

An idiot of the first order:

*Daniel Zeichner*
I thank the Secretary of State; let us hope that we are well prepared. Taking him back to the time just before Christmas, given that soon after his visit to Cambridge he told the _Evening Standard_ that cycle lanes cause problems for road users, will he clarify exactly who he thinks road users are? While he is thinking about cyclists—a helpful clue—could he explain why it is taking such an extraordinarily long time to produce a cycling and walking investment strategy?




*Chris Grayling*

Cyclists use cycle lanes, and motorists and other road users use the roads alongside them. That is fairly straightforward, to be honest. If the hon. Gentleman is eagerly anticipating our cycling and walking strategy, he does not have long to wait.

 Strategy, what strategy?


----------



## Drago (13 Jan 2017)

He's a fat bald nincompoop with a long history of mediocre performance at best, and a recent history of dooring cyclists. It's no coincidence that his head is shaped like a sex toy.


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Some of them are major routes.


But *most* of the ones without footways or cycle tracks alongside aren't.



Spinney said:


> Why???


Stop the farking ratrunners ruining where we live.



Spinney said:


> Some are major, as Adrian pointed out. But the ones that are not are still routes between villages and *provide access* to the countryside.


I did put "except access".



Spinney said:


> Gating them would prevent cyclists/walkers/horse riders using them as well as motor traffic.


Not necessarily. Plenty of gates have gaps to the side for those modes, plus the ones which are full width (for cattle control, in most cases I've seen) can be opened - motorists hate stopping and getting out of the car to do so, so tend to avoid them.



Spinney said:


> And would resident access only apply to all traffic (including bikes) as well as motors?


I'd apply the restrictions to motors only, as normal.



jonny jeez said:


> Segregation is not the answer. This is just one of the reasons why.


Segregation had little to do with the plonker's comment, but well done to all the bike snobs for shoehorning it in. I hope you're proud of yourselves.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> snipped....
> 
> Segregation had little to do with the plonker's comment, but well done to all the bike snobs for shoehorning it in. I hope you're proud of yourselves.



This kind of attitude : "cyclists shouldn't be on the road" is the main reason I am anti-segregation. The mere existance of the cycle lane makes roads more dangerous to cyclists, and not just the segregated road either. This is the key point for me, not a "shoehorned in" argument.

We may not agree on segregation, but it's unhelpfull to imply those you disagree with of making a dishonest argument.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2017)

Transport secretary demonstrates that he doesn't fully understand what a road user is... surely that means he's not qualified for the position. 

Either send on a training course or tell him to stand down.


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Two points
> 1) Yes it did because he was replying to a question that specified segregated lanes.
> 2) It is not a matter of bike snobbery here. Whilst I am undoubtedly vulnerable to that state, I think your vision that weak and vulnerable cyclists are served by segregation is a mistake. Yes they are, up to a point, whilst using the facility. Countering that though, no they are not if it means they are less safe on the actual bits of road that go where they actually want to go.


I once had a car overtake me, slow to my speed alongside me then move across to push me into the cycle lane which was a doorzone.


----------



## jonny jeez (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> But *most* of the ones without footways or cycle tracks alongside aren't.
> 
> 
> Stop the farking ratrunners ruining where we live.
> ...


It has everything to do with segregation.


And nothing to do with snobbery.

Segregation is not a scalable, efficient, long term or even practical solution.

Education and change addresses all of those challenges.

But education and change takes more than 4 years and politician's don't like solutions that cant grab headlines and require time...even if they actually solve the problem.

Inverted bike snobs are as bad as snobs.

Not sure I know which either is.


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Although it would never be likely to be prosecuted as such, what you are describing is an assault.


I know. Wish I had the presence of mind to take down details.


----------



## srw (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Hang about, can you imagine the consequences for every other ministerial appointment?


And your problem with is exactly what?


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> Hang about, can you imagine the consequences for every other ministerial appointment?


yup, its a Utopian dream... where the streets are paved with hamburgers, and the rivers run with Watney's Red Barrel.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2017)

I wonder if cyclists in Holland or Copenhagen are classed as road users by their transport secs?


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4636521, member: 45"]Cyclists are allowed on the roads. Drivers need to get over themselves.

Some segregated/shared use is beneficial. Cyclists need to get over themselves.[/QUOTE]
But do the benefits of such infrastructure outweigh the danger when a cyclist isn't in it because some of it is crap, dangerous etc?


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> 1) Yes it did because he was replying to a question that specified segregated lanes.


I've read the question and gone back and read his pre-Christmas Evening Standard speak-your-branes, and it seemed to be all cycle lanes, not specifically segregated.



User said:


> 2) It is not a matter of bike snobbery here. Whilst I am undoubtedly vulnerable to that state, I think your vision that weak and vulnerable cyclists are served by segregation is a mistake. Yes they are, up to a point, whilst using the facility. Countering that though, no they are not if it means they are less safe on the actual bits of road that go where they actually want to go.


I agree with the safety bit, but the assumptions like protection being segregation or it being primarily for the "weak" are what I call snobbery.



Profpointy said:


> We may not agree on segregation, but it's unhelpfull to imply those you disagree with of making a dishonest argument.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply they're dishonest: I wanted to suggest it's irrelevant to the latest Grayling brain fart.



Markymark said:


> But do the benefits of such infrastructure outweigh the danger when a cyclist isn't in it because some of it is crap, dangerous etc?


"Reply hazy - ask again later"?


----------



## Markymark (13 Jan 2017)

[QUOTE 4636560, member: 45"]I think so. The quality of the provision is a different consideration.[/QUOTE]
In London I don't think so. What we have is often dangerous. When I don't use it I get different dangers from drivers who think I should.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Jan 2017)

Question: on the Leeds - Bradford Cycle Superhighway, there are sections where the pre-existing cycle lane has been left in place the side of the road and a new segregated cycleway has been installed adjacent taking some of the room previously occupied by the footpath / verge. 
Which one does Mr Grayling prefer that I use? I'd hate to incur the wrath of his 4x4 door if I got it wrong...

(The actual answer is that I'd stay on the road for virtually all of it as it's significantly quicker and I have as much right as anyone to be there.)


----------



## jonny jeez (13 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> I wonder if cyclists in Holland or Copenhagen are classed as road users by their transport secs?


From my personal experience, they are classed as people.

The tribalism between cars and bikes just doesn't exist. Out of town some segregation exists but in the old centres its a free for all...in the literal sense.


----------



## Drago (13 Jan 2017)

Chris Grayling, yesterday.


----------



## spen666 (13 Jan 2017)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> He's the guy who thought prisoners shouldn't have access to books, I think. And look how prisons have thrived since.....


He was right - when have prisoners got time to read the books. They are too busy rioting these days!!!!


Seriously, if the reported remarks are true, then he should be removed as transport secretary. How can the minister responsible for road use not know who can use the roads


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

jonny jeez said:


> From my personal experience, they are classed as people.
> 
> The tribalism between cars and bikes just doesn't exist. Out of town some segregation exists but in the old centres its a free for all...in the literal sense.


Yes and that's where we need to get to. In my experience, I'd say protected spaces often start as soon as you get to the edge of town and yes, it does often become actual segregation out of town, with cycles required to use the round-signed cycle tracks unless there's a "schlecte ..." plate (to denote it's damaged or substandard) ... and it mostly works there IMO because government there aren't such nobbers to cyclists and build cycle tracks properly, like mini roads - because some elected members will probably use them - not as an afterthought to be squeezed in if there's space left after the carriageways and landscaping and street lights and litter bins and phone cabinets and whatever other junk English highway authorities like to put in the cycle tracks.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jan 2017)

I think we are missing the big worry here. He makes policy. If he thinks that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the main carriageway if there is a bicycle lane, he could end up introducing legislation to that effect. They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)


----------



## User16625 (13 Jan 2017)

Flying Dodo said:


> I was going to say, someone shoot him, but that's not a reasoned, responsible comment.


 
And I will add my own disresponsible and unreasonable comment; I really want to smack that mofu, wouldn care if I got arrested it would be worth it. Hope his tiny todger turns into a tumour.


----------



## bonsaibilly (13 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> I think we are missing the big worry here. He makes policy. If he thinks that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the main carriageway if there is a bicycle lane, he could end up introducing legislation to that effect. They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)


Those are cities, not countries.

What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jan 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> Those are cities, not countries.


Really? I know they are cities. They are cities in other countries. So the laws exist in other countries. Many other countries don't have national laws for things like this. Technically the Melbourne law is Victorian legislation but I don't expect people in the UK to know the names of Australian states, so saying Melbourne is useful short hand, especially as 3/4 of the state's population and most of the bicycle lanes are there. As for the New York law, I don't know anything about it, except for this amusing video.


> What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?


I have no idea what that question means. I don't think the law was introduced for safety reasons, but to get cyclists out of the way of drivers. And it wasn't safety that would concern me, it's getting into arguments with drivers and police who have a different opinion on what "not practical" means. 

"If there’s a bicycle lane on the road heading in the same direction as you, you must use this when riding a bike (unless it’s not practical to do so)."

OK, so there is no indication that they are about to introduce this legislation but I am still concerned that Grayling would likely think it was a good idea.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Jan 2017)

bonsaibilly said:


> Those are cities, not countries.
> 
> What are the danger statistics in those cities as a result of the rules?



Well you'll concede both New York and Melbourne are in foreign counties. I dare say you might concede both are in anti cycling countries and that the intention is to get cyclists off the road and out of the way. I half recall a tale of someone in Melbourne being fined for cycling on the roads despite his claim he was on the road to avoid the tin tack campaign on said cycle lanes


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> They have such rules in other countries (New York and Melbourne do, for instance)


Does New York now? It didn't five years ago, at the time of this famous film, although that didn't stop a nobber fining the videoer:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Does New York now? It didn't five years ago, at the time of this famous film, although that didn't stop a nobber fining the videoer:
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ



You liked my post, but didn't read it.



jefmcg said:


> As for the New York law, I don't know anything about it, except for this amusing video.


OK, so I only (off hand) know one city where cycling not in the bike lane is illegal.


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> You liked my post, but didn't read it.


You cited the video as evidence of a law, but hadn't watched the "not illegal" bit?


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> You cited the video as evidence of a law, but hadn't watched the "not illegal" bit?


I didn't rewatch it, obviously, so remembered it incorrectly. And not really "evidence", more admission of the paucity of my sources. I double checked the Melbourne rules before I posted, because it seemed important to know the law existed in at least one place.

Ignore all that. The guy on the radio on the video is wrong. You are required by law to use a cycle lane if you can, in NY and Melbourne. 
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml


> *NYC Biking Laws*
> *[...]*
> 
> Use marked bike lanes or paths when available, except when making turns or when it is unsafe to do so. If the road is too narrow for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side, you have the right to ride in the middle of the travel lane. Bicycling is permitted on all main and local streets throughout the City, even when no designated route exists.


----------



## mjr (13 Jan 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Ignore all that. The guy on the radio on the video is wrong. You are required by law to use a cycle lane if you can, in NY and Melbourne.
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/biketips.shtml


Looking more, I think both are sort-of right because the guy in the video shouldn't have been ticketed for leaving the lane to avoid a double-parked car making it unsafe. That website oversimplifies the law: 4-12(p) in this PDF. Basically the "when it is unsafe" includes loads of stuff - even when there's another bike in it... but some police seem to ticket any time you leave the lane, which is a mess and a nuisance. This is why I don't like relying on such exceptions and don't think any such law should exist.

If you want obnoxious anti-cycling laws, some states have one that when there's no bike lane, you must ride at the extreme right-hand edge of the road.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2017)

jonny jeez said:


> From my personal experience, they are classed as people.
> 
> The tribalism between cars and bikes just doesn't exist. Out of town some segregation exists but in the old centres its a free for all...in the literal sense.


There's plenty of segregation in Amsterdam and Copenhagen, plus the cars and bikes share the roads too. How come segregation here supposedly leads to tribalism (according @User and others) yet it doesn't on the other side of the North Sea?

Edit to add... folk like my dad who see a bike and think 'bloody cyclists'... they existed long before we had segregated cycle lanes.


----------



## dim (13 Jan 2017)

he's a nob.... not the sort of guy who I'd invite on a fishing trip or BBQ

he's looking for publicity and attention

the daffodil should be impeached and banned


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Jan 2017)

User said:


> There are tripping points. If you get a society where most people are themselves a cyclist, or have close friends and family members who are cyclists, then the tribalism fades into the background.


I reckon the tribalism here is already in the background... it's just a got a big mouth.


----------



## Lonestar (14 Jan 2017)

The bloke is a dickhead.My bikes have been my mode of transport for many years keeping yet another car off of the road.

Didn't think much of this self important person before hand but I think even less of him now.


----------



## steve292 (14 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Stop the farking ratrunners ruining where we live.



Define a ratrunner.

I ride my bike a lot, but I also drive, as do many others. And along with many others I also pay tax, of which some goes to infrastructure, roads being an example of this. I will drive down any legal highway to get to my destination, whilst obeying the law, and being a considerate road user. When the people who live on that highway pay exclusivly for its upkeep, than i'll stop driving on them.
Before you get on your high horse, I will point out that yes, I do walk & I use public transport sometimes, & my eldest goes on the bus to school (Churchill 5 miles away).
I also live in Locking which is the very definition of a rat run.


----------



## Lonestar (14 Jan 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...g-trend-fuelled-fat-cars-fat-drivers-aa-boss/

Cars like their owners are getting fatter.

Hope you don't mind me posting this here but it's my other mate involved.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Jan 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> There's plenty of segregation in Amsterdam and Copenhagen, plus the cars and bikes share the roads too. How come segregation here supposedly leads to tribalism (according @User and others) yet it doesn't on the other side of the North Sea?
> 
> Edit to add... folk like my dad who see a bike and think 'bloody cyclists'... they existed long before we had segregated cycle lanes.


It might also be the case, running counter to the hard anti-segregation line, that installing decent cycling infrastructure actually _integrates_ cycling into our roads, first for incorporating cycling into policy (notwithstanding road illiterate ministers) and secondly, by encouraging and increasing the number of cyclists there's a greater likelihood that drivers are also cyclists, and have a better understanding of cyclists' needs.

I have the feeling that the ''Get in the cycle lane'' drivers are simply the ''Get back in the gutter'' drivers responding to a change in infrastructure. It would be interesting to hear about drivers' responses to better cycling facilities in, say, the Netherlands. I'm sure there were knuckle-dragging Nederlanderthals back in the 70s and 80s. Anybody know about reports into this?

EDIT: I hadn't read until the end of the thread before posting and now see that this has partly been covered.


----------



## theclaud (14 Jan 2017)

steve292 said:


> Define a ratrunner.


A driver who uses residential streets as a through route or shortcut.


----------



## Cycleops (14 Jan 2017)




----------



## atbman (14 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Looking more, I think both are sort-of right because the guy in the video shouldn't have been ticketed for leaving the lane to avoid a double-parked car making it unsafe. That website oversimplifies the law: 4-12(p) in this PDF. Basically the "when it is unsafe" includes loads of stuff - even when there's another bike in it... but some police seem to ticket any time you leave the lane, which is a mess and a nuisance. This is why I don't like relying on such exceptions and don't think any such law should exist.
> 
> If you want obnoxious anti-cycling laws, some states have one that when there's no bike lane, you must ride at the extreme right-hand edge of the road.



Not true AFAIK. The wording is almost always "as far to the right as practicable/practical. Drivers (and sometimes the police) have a tendency to interpret this as the meaning you describe. I've not come across any state with those words in its legislation


----------



## mjr (15 Jan 2017)

steve292 said:


> I also live in Locking which is the very definition of a rat run.


Pull the other one! Where's Locking on a rat run to? Are they getting January sales rushes to Hutton garden centre? Any hardcore ratrunners wanting a short cut into town will take the turn just after the motorway bridge (I think it's Elborough, but I've not checked the map) rather than go through Locking.

Also, Locking's got a ton of speed cushions and a one-way system, in part to discourage rat-running. It's probably not as effective as a good gate, but North Somerset's transport leadership is a bit wary of doing much that would curb the cars... probably because of reactions like this:


steve292 said:


> And along with many others I also pay tax, of which some goes to infrastructure, roads being an example of this. I will drive down any legal highway to get to my destination, whilst obeying the law, and being a considerate road user.


Well, yes, no-one says not. I'm just saying we should put some gates across three-quarters of the width of some rural single-track roads that would be good cycling routes were it not for motorists straying from the main roads because their sat nav thinks a 60-limit back road will save them 5 seconds. You can still drive down it to get to your destination, but you'll now have to obey the law and open and close the gate partway along.



steve292 said:


> When the people who live on that highway pay exclusivly for its upkeep, than i'll stop driving on them.


I've some sympathy for that view - I was part of a parish council that tried to lease a road so we could calm traffic on it - but to me, the bottom line is: if someone lives on a back road, it should remain a back road unless there's due process to change that. Back roads shouldn't become major routes willy-nilly just because some motorists are determined to leadfoot it along them and bleat about the unfairness of the people who live there wanting to continue to live without the threat of motorists injuring them or demolishing their homes. Heck, a minority of motorists manage to do that on purpose-designed major routes with all the safety features and visibility distances, so they'll definitely manage it on back roads that are turned into ad-hoc major routes.

People in towns are allowed to live on back streets without having the world racing through, thanks to blanket 30mph and increasingly 20mph zones and the road designs that come with them - including gates, in some cases - why shouldn't villagers be allowed to live on back roads?


----------



## steve292 (16 Jan 2017)

mjr said:


> Pull the other one! Where's Locking on a rat run to? Are they getting January sales rushes to Hutton garden centre? Any hardcore ratrunners wanting a short cut into town will take the turn just after the motorway bridge (I think it's Elborough, but I've not checked the map) rather than go through Locking



Live here do you?

Not if your coming off the motorway you won't. We get loads heading to the back of town in the evening trying to avoid the cluster f""k thats between flowerdown bridge and Winterstoke road. Not so many in the mornings as its not such an obvious way around. They go round the one way and down the Bury. That's not just a perception either, I live right on the main road at the garage end of the village & see it when riding or driving home in the rush hour.
What I'm getting at is that these people live in the area and IMO have reason to drive through to get to where they live and to blanket everyone with the title rat runner is a bit simplistic. .

I am not totally disagreeing with you, as you seem to miss the bit where I said "whilst obeying the law, and being a considerate road user." I totally agree with you about speed limits & the lowering of them in urban areas. The speed humps and the chicane things don't make a blind bit of difference. IMHO, yours may be different.

What does help in this area is as all the new development goes in the cycle paths are coming/ slowly being upgraded. I presume this is mandated in the planning permisssions, the council wouldn't do it by itself .There is a reluctance to get people to consider cycling as a alternative way of transport here and a dragging of heels to facilitate this as evidenced by the Tutshill rhyne saga, I don't often use them when out by myself except to avoid the dual carriageway, but when I'm tootling about with the kids I like the fact I can get all the way to the seafront, or into Worle without going onto the roads, except for the stretch from my house to the A371. & I say that from a position of not being a segregationist(?)

Enforcement of limits & laws with prosecution & punitive fines for endangering people, along with removal of licences & custodial sentences for those who injure and kill is the way forward, along with getting more people out of their cars. It wasn't until drink driving penalties became draconian and the offence had a social stigma attached to it that it started to decline.Then your "rat runner" turns into law abiding user of a form of transport going home .


----------



## mjr (16 Jan 2017)

steve292 said:


> Live here do you?


Yeah, I lived nearby for a while and still visit often.



steve292 said:


> Not if your coming off the motorway you won't. We get loads heading to the back of town in the evening trying to avoid the cluster f""k thats between flowerdown bridge and Winterstoke road. Not so many in the mornings as its not such an obvious way around. They go round the one way and down the Bury. That's not just a perception either, I live right on the main road at the garage end of the village & see it when riding or driving home in the rush hour.


Not only "not such an obvious" as almost never worthwhile. According to routing software, even starting from the Walnut Tree mini-roundabout at 4:50PM and sitting in queues all the way up Oldmixon Road and along Herluin Way, it's still quicker than driving the extra mile and a bit past you. The only time it might make sense is if the road is blocked and even then, it's quicker to take the road clipping the edge of Elborough and drive past Locking on the A road (although that does still mean driving through Hutton). So stick a gate at the bottom of the Bury and make it obvious to nobbers that farking up Locking for its residents isn't worth it.



steve292 said:


> What I'm getting at is that these people live in the area and IMO have reason to drive through to get to where they live and to blanket everyone with the title rat runner is a bit simplistic.


What I'm getting at is that people who live on/near the roads are fine driving through, but motorists who don't are ratrunners and should be encouraged more strongly to stick on major routes designed for the purpose.



steve292 said:


> I am not totally disagreeing with you, as you seem to miss the bit where I said "whilst obeying the law, and being a considerate road user." I totally agree with you about speed limits & the lowering of them in urban areas. The speed humps and the chicane things don't make a blind bit of difference. IMHO, yours may be different.


No, I didn't miss it and I don't think speed humps and the chicane things make much difference to them either (but they are nuisances for cycling and local residents) which is why I propose greater use of bollards (where motor access isn't desired except in emergencies) and gates to leave the roads free for safer users.



steve292 said:


> Enforcement of limits & laws with prosecution & punitive fines for endangering people, along with removal of licences & custodial sentences for those who injure and kill is the way forward, along with getting more people out of their cars.


Amen. And at the moment, neither of those happens in Somerset.


----------

