Cyclist fined for refusing to get off bike in Newport

CYCLING FINE: A man who refused to get off his bike in a pedestrian only zone of Newport city centre was yesterday fined £50 by Gwent Police

CYCLING FINE: A man who refused to get off his bike in a pedestrian only zone of Newport city centre was yesterday fined £50 by Gwent Police

First published in News
Last updated

A MAN who refused to get off his bike in a pedestrian only zone of Newport city centre was yesterday fined £50 by Gwent Police.

Officers urged riders to “think safety” as their campaign for better bike safety targeted at drivers and cyclists continues.

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

davidcp says...

Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop? davidcp
  • Score: -57

11:35am Fri 4 Jul 14

myopinion1988 says...

davidcp wrote:
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?
[quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop? myopinion1988
  • Score: 60

11:48am Fri 4 Jul 14

Ian (Mac) MacKinlay says...

'


"A MAN who refused to get off his bike in a pedestrian only zone of Newport city centre was yesterday fined £50 by Gwent Police. "

I am very pleased to hear this news, and I hope this is the start of seriously treating this sort of anti-social behaviour with the concern it deserves.

The pedestrianized zones of the city, and pavements in general, are for pedestrians, not cyclists.

I note that it is the Police on this occasion that have been active. Good on them.

I am sure however, that it is also in the remit of the town wardens to actually do something about this problem. I would like to see some evidence that they too are beginning to deal with a problem that bothers very many of the citizens of Newport.

Comparisons between Newport town centre and Cwmbran are often made. It should be noted that the anti-social practice of riding bicycles through the pedestrianized areas is not tolerated in Cwmbran.

I should be able to feel as safe as a pedestrian in Newport as I am able to do so in Cwmbran.


.
' "A MAN who refused to get off his bike in a pedestrian only zone of Newport city centre was yesterday fined £50 by Gwent Police. " I am very pleased to hear this news, and I hope this is the start of seriously treating this sort of anti-social behaviour with the concern it deserves. The pedestrianized zones of the city, and pavements in general, are for pedestrians, not cyclists. I note that it is the Police on this occasion that have been active. Good on them. I am sure however, that it is also in the remit of the town wardens to actually do something about this problem. I would like to see some evidence that they too are beginning to deal with a problem that bothers very many of the citizens of Newport. Comparisons between Newport town centre and Cwmbran are often made. It should be noted that the anti-social practice of riding bicycles through the pedestrianized areas is not tolerated in Cwmbran. I should be able to feel as safe as a pedestrian in Newport as I am able to do so in Cwmbran. . Ian (Mac) MacKinlay
  • Score: 61

11:55am Fri 4 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.
He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country. KarloMarko
  • Score: -53

12:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Jonnytrouble says...

About time some action has been done to these thoughtless idiots !
I for one almost got knocked down many years ago by a guy racing through and believe it or not at the same area as on the photo !
Hope this fine will be a warning to others !
About time some action has been done to these thoughtless idiots ! I for one almost got knocked down many years ago by a guy racing through and believe it or not at the same area as on the photo ! Hope this fine will be a warning to others ! Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 46

12:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Dave on his Soapbox says...

.......it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement if it's not a designated cycle path....ignorance of the Law is not a defence.....as may people believe.....as Andy Coulson has just found out.

While it's understandable that for some cycling on the pavement is safer and less likely to suffer fatally...as being knocked off and run over by a bus or car is....than a cyclalist is to a pedestrian.....

BUT...what is totally unacceptable are the cyclalist who ride at a speed which is not safe and without regard to pedestrians.

As with any aspect of road/pavement usage its about a level of consideration / education as to the wrong way of using them / and where speed is appropriate.......an
d to a certain extent common sense and risk assessment....which many people do not have....
.......it is an offence to ride a bicycle on the pavement if it's not a designated cycle path....ignorance of the Law is not a defence.....as may people believe.....as Andy Coulson has just found out. While it's understandable that for some cycling on the pavement is safer and less likely to suffer fatally...as being knocked off and run over by a bus or car is....than a cyclalist is to a pedestrian..... BUT...what is totally unacceptable are the cyclalist who ride at a speed which is not safe and without regard to pedestrians. As with any aspect of road/pavement usage its about a level of consideration / education as to the wrong way of using them / and where speed is appropriate.......an d to a certain extent common sense and risk assessment....which many people do not have.... Dave on his Soapbox
  • Score: 35

1:02pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

I think it's always worthwhile that cyclists (as well as pedestrians in a hurry) should remember to be aware that there may be people around who might be more vulnerable or frail than themselves - children and the elderly, for example - and also small animals. If a frail elderly person sustains a fall then it is often enough to kill them. Even if they don't die outright as a result of being knocked to the ground, such a trauma can even exacerbate and accelerate existing conditions like dementia and oesteoporosis causing a rapidly downward spiral leading to an untimely and needlessly painful death.
I think it's always worthwhile that cyclists (as well as pedestrians in a hurry) should remember to be aware that there may be people around who might be more vulnerable or frail than themselves - children and the elderly, for example - and also small animals. If a frail elderly person sustains a fall then it is often enough to kill them. Even if they don't die outright as a result of being knocked to the ground, such a trauma can even exacerbate and accelerate existing conditions like dementia and oesteoporosis causing a rapidly downward spiral leading to an untimely and needlessly painful death. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 32

1:13pm Fri 4 Jul 14

-trigg- says...

Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights. -trigg-
  • Score: 33

1:18pm Fri 4 Jul 14

davidcp says...

myopinion1988 wrote:
davidcp wrote:
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?
I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.
[quote][p][bold]myopinion1988[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?[/p][/quote]I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly. davidcp
  • Score: -21

2:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Jimport says...

davidcp wrote:
myopinion1988 wrote:
davidcp wrote:
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?
I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.
It seems to have sparked a debate about the levels of fines for differing offences, which you have started, so it is contributing something to democratic debate and therefore fulfills the remit of the media, does it not?

And is your question genuine, or rhetorical - do you know the answer? Is it the same fine for stealing from a shop? And what level of stealing are we talking about? My great-uncle was badly hurt by a cyclist colliding with him in a town centre, which I find more serious than someone pinching a pair of knickers from Primark. It all depends on the seriousness of the case at hand really, doesn't it. It's a complicated world, people insist on trying to simplify it, perhaps in the hope that will make it simple in the real world. It won't.
[quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myopinion1988[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?[/p][/quote]I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.[/p][/quote]It seems to have sparked a debate about the levels of fines for differing offences, which you have started, so it is contributing something to democratic debate and therefore fulfills the remit of the media, does it not? And is your question genuine, or rhetorical - do you know the answer? Is it the same fine for stealing from a shop? And what level of stealing are we talking about? My great-uncle was badly hurt by a cyclist colliding with him in a town centre, which I find more serious than someone pinching a pair of knickers from Primark. It all depends on the seriousness of the case at hand really, doesn't it. It's a complicated world, people insist on trying to simplify it, perhaps in the hope that will make it simple in the real world. It won't. Jimport
  • Score: 25

2:18pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Jimport says...

It isn't the trivial joke of a problem it might first appear.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/2
263354/Cyclist-knock
ed-down-and-killed-t
eenage-girl-court-he
ars.html
It isn't the trivial joke of a problem it might first appear. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/2 263354/Cyclist-knock ed-down-and-killed-t eenage-girl-court-he ars.html Jimport
  • Score: 17

3:22pm Fri 4 Jul 14

davidcp says...

Okay, hang 'em all.
Okay, hang 'em all. davidcp
  • Score: -25

4:03pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -2

4:14pm Fri 4 Jul 14

westender says...

KarloMarko wrote:
He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.
Or alternatively and far more likely run into a pedestrian, and as elderly people are far more likely to be a victim of this type of incident the consequences could and indeed be fatal or life changing.
This initiative is long overdue and should be applauded
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.[/p][/quote]Or alternatively and far more likely run into a pedestrian, and as elderly people are far more likely to be a victim of this type of incident [not accident] the consequences could and indeed be fatal or life changing. This initiative is long overdue and should be applauded westender
  • Score: 18

4:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

KarloMarko wrote:
He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.
About time that they clamped down on these cyclists louts who think the law does not apply to them.. They are always keen to say that car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and taxi drivers need better training but if you suggest that perhaps they should be trained before going on the roads they squeal like pigs as does any suggestion that they carry a licence number
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.[/p][/quote]About time that they clamped down on these cyclists louts who think the law does not apply to them.. They are always keen to say that car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and taxi drivers need better training but if you suggest that perhaps they should be trained before going on the roads they squeal like pigs as does any suggestion that they carry a licence number Bobevans
  • Score: 11

4:16pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

KarloMarko wrote:
He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.
About time that they clamped down on these cyclists louts who think the law does not apply to them.. They are always keen to say that car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and taxi drivers need better training but if you suggest that perhaps they should be trained before going on the roads they squeal like pigs as does any suggestion that they carry a licence number
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: He could have "potentially" lost control of his bike, smashed thro the front window of a local pub and killed at least twenty innocent drinkers in one murderous shower of broken glass and flat SA. Sometimes I think we are far too soft in this country.[/p][/quote]About time that they clamped down on these cyclists louts who think the law does not apply to them.. They are always keen to say that car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and taxi drivers need better training but if you suggest that perhaps they should be trained before going on the roads they squeal like pigs as does any suggestion that they carry a licence number Bobevans
  • Score: 9

4:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport Bobevans
  • Score: 15

4:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport Bobevans
  • Score: 11

4:23pm Fri 4 Jul 14

westender says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
One collision is enough surely? I rarely visit Newport , but without fail I see several cyclists ignoring the pedestrianized area signs and cycling through often with a mobile phone and occasionally a book.
Anyway all this is irrelevant, the streets are pedestrianized not cycle tracks
so he was handled fairly
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]One collision is enough surely? I rarely visit Newport , but without fail I see several cyclists ignoring the pedestrianized area signs and cycling through often with a mobile phone and occasionally a book. Anyway all this is irrelevant, the streets are pedestrianized not cycle tracks so he was handled fairly westender
  • Score: 14

4:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

"All the studies show
that collisions between cyclists
and pedestrians are so rare as to
be irrelevant even in cities with
high volumes of cyclists (eg
Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
"All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike. KarloMarko
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

westender says...

davidcp wrote:
myopinion1988 wrote:
davidcp wrote:
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?
I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.
I would bet the farm that if a cyclist collided with you or yours you would be calling for a far weightier sentence than a £ 10 fine?
[quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myopinion1988[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?[/p][/quote]I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.[/p][/quote]I would bet the farm that if a cyclist collided with you or yours you would be calling for a far weightier sentence than a £ 10 fine? westender
  • Score: 14

5:38pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

KarloMarko wrote:
"All the studies show
that collisions between cyclists
and pedestrians are so rare as to
be irrelevant even in cities with
high volumes of cyclists (eg
Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
Of course you know someone (not). Try taking the bikes off the pensioners that ride around Amsterdam on vast numbers ! Statistically you have more chance of being knocked over by someone running or walking and no doubt you'd fine those too. I was in Newport Monday and only saw 1 cyclist - in his suit probably going to work. I'm not a cyclist but I'd prefer my taxes spent on making a difference in the town centre - not wasted on soft targets to prevent something that's never going to happen.
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.[/p][/quote]Of course you know someone (not). Try taking the bikes off the pensioners that ride around Amsterdam on vast numbers ! Statistically you have more chance of being knocked over by someone running or walking and no doubt you'd fine those too. I was in Newport Monday and only saw 1 cyclist - in his suit probably going to work. I'm not a cyclist but I'd prefer my taxes spent on making a difference in the town centre - not wasted on soft targets to prevent something that's never going to happen. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -19

5:41pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

KarloMarko wrote:
"All the studies show
that collisions between cyclists
and pedestrians are so rare as to
be irrelevant even in cities with
high volumes of cyclists (eg
Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.[/p][/quote]Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion, Woodgnome
  • Score: 19

5:46pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Bobevans wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport[/p][/quote]Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -21

5:51pm Fri 4 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

"The law-abiding nature of the
people (Malmo) also helps cut down on fatalities. For Swedes, cycling in
the wrong direction on a cycle
path or, WORSE STILL, on a
pavement intended for
pedestrians, elicits the sort of
outrage people in the UK reserve
for those dumping their rubbish
on the pavement." ~ Guardian 11/2013. It's a CULTURAL awareness in addition to a spatial...and too many of Newport's cycle clowns have holes where that should be. Not allowed to cycle? Really? Then get off and bl/dy. walk. You put one leg....
"The law-abiding nature of the people (Malmo) also helps cut down on fatalities. For Swedes, cycling in the wrong direction on a cycle path or, WORSE STILL, on a pavement intended for pedestrians, elicits the sort of outrage people in the UK reserve for those dumping their rubbish on the pavement." ~ Guardian 11/2013. It's a CULTURAL awareness in addition to a spatial...and too many of Newport's cycle clowns have holes where that should be. Not allowed to cycle? Really? Then get off and bl/dy. walk. You put one leg.... KarloMarko
  • Score: 3

5:52pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Jimport wrote:
davidcp wrote:
myopinion1988 wrote:
davidcp wrote:
Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?
What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?
I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.
It seems to have sparked a debate about the levels of fines for differing offences, which you have started, so it is contributing something to democratic debate and therefore fulfills the remit of the media, does it not?

And is your question genuine, or rhetorical - do you know the answer? Is it the same fine for stealing from a shop? And what level of stealing are we talking about? My great-uncle was badly hurt by a cyclist colliding with him in a town centre, which I find more serious than someone pinching a pair of knickers from Primark. It all depends on the seriousness of the case at hand really, doesn't it. It's a complicated world, people insist on trying to simplify it, perhaps in the hope that will make it simple in the real world. It won't.
Your great uncle was a victim of the offence of "wanton and furious driving "It is serious and indictable only.
Shoplifting is serious and carries a maximum of 7 years. The point quite correctly made by davidcp is that if the fixed penalty for the bike one is £50 and theft £80 then the authorities regard the cycling as 5 eighths as serious as stealing. Well it isn't and the authorities are once again in LaLa Land
Westender makes the same mistake. if you cycle recklessly and injure someone you commit any number of offences, potentially from common assault to GBH. Not getting off a bike is not a serious matter. if someone is hurt the cyclist is punishable. Quite different concepts.
[quote][p][bold]Jimport[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myopinion1988[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]davidcp[/bold] wrote: Is that the same fine for stealing from a shop?[/p][/quote]What relevance does that have to a cyclist refusing to get of his bike? That cyclist is potentially putting pedestrians at risk, how does this effect a shop?[/p][/quote]I was alluding to the facts that (a) issuing a ticket is not news and (b) riding a bike in a pedestrianised area being the same fine as stealing is an outrage. Make the cycling fine £10, and stop letting THIEVES off so lightly.[/p][/quote]It seems to have sparked a debate about the levels of fines for differing offences, which you have started, so it is contributing something to democratic debate and therefore fulfills the remit of the media, does it not? And is your question genuine, or rhetorical - do you know the answer? Is it the same fine for stealing from a shop? And what level of stealing are we talking about? My great-uncle was badly hurt by a cyclist colliding with him in a town centre, which I find more serious than someone pinching a pair of knickers from Primark. It all depends on the seriousness of the case at hand really, doesn't it. It's a complicated world, people insist on trying to simplify it, perhaps in the hope that will make it simple in the real world. It won't.[/p][/quote]Your great uncle was a victim of the offence of "wanton and furious driving "It is serious and indictable only. Shoplifting is serious and carries a maximum of 7 years. The point quite correctly made by davidcp is that if the fixed penalty for the bike one is £50 and theft £80 then the authorities regard the cycling as 5 eighths as serious as stealing. Well it isn't and the authorities are once again in LaLa Land Westender makes the same mistake. if you cycle recklessly and injure someone you commit any number of offences, potentially from common assault to GBH. Not getting off a bike is not a serious matter. if someone is hurt the cyclist is punishable. Quite different concepts. Dai Rear
  • Score: 23

5:57pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Woodgnome wrote:
KarloMarko wrote:
"All the studies show
that collisions between cyclists
and pedestrians are so rare as to
be irrelevant even in cities with
high volumes of cyclists (eg
Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,
The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.[/p][/quote]Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,[/p][/quote]The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -12

6:03pm Fri 4 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

With your "****" attitude I'd put you right in with the lowest life. Only you matter. Christ, how do you get that head in helmet. Or indeed, why.
With your "****" attitude I'd put you right in with the lowest life. Only you matter. Christ, how do you get that head in helmet. Or indeed, why. KarloMarko
  • Score: -4

6:11pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
KarloMarko wrote:
"All the studies show
that collisions between cyclists
and pedestrians are so rare as to
be irrelevant even in cities with
high volumes of cyclists (eg
Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,
The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen.
All the cities you harp on and on about have a long history of cycling so that its part of the culture there. Cycling in pedestrianized zones in Newport is not part of the culture. The cyclist was properly fined - so get over it.
PS you have no clue whether commentators are old or young.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.[/p][/quote]Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,[/p][/quote]The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen.[/p][/quote]All the cities you harp on and on about have a long history of cycling so that its part of the culture there. Cycling in pedestrianized zones in Newport is not part of the culture. The cyclist was properly fined - so get over it. PS you have no clue whether commentators are old or young. Woodgnome
  • Score: 21

6:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

KarloMarko wrote:
With your "****" attitude I'd put you right in with the lowest life. Only you matter. Christ, how do you get that head in helmet. Or indeed, why.
Ha. Silly bully troll. As usual it didn't take you and Woodgnome long to insult anyone you think has a different opinion. I just want my taxes spent on solving the problem not wasted on a non-problem.
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: With your "****" attitude I'd put you right in with the lowest life. Only you matter. Christ, how do you get that head in helmet. Or indeed, why.[/p][/quote]Ha. Silly bully troll. As usual it didn't take you and Woodgnome long to insult anyone you think has a different opinion. I just want my taxes spent on solving the problem not wasted on a non-problem. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -15

6:23pm Fri 4 Jul 14

blue lagoon 2 says...

A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users. blue lagoon 2
  • Score: 18

6:40pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
[quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -15

6:48pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along. Woodgnome
  • Score: 14

6:56pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -14

7:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll. NakedDancer
  • Score: -12

7:19pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.
On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.[/p][/quote]On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about. Woodgnome
  • Score: 6

7:25pm Fri 4 Jul 14

thomas35 says...

Jimport ... Why on earth was your great uncle pinching a pair of knickers fron Primark??
Jimport ... Why on earth was your great uncle pinching a pair of knickers fron Primark?? thomas35
  • Score: 11

8:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

manofponty says...

About time!
About time! manofponty
  • Score: 10

9:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

warneboy says...

A speed limit is needed for the Fatritis Motability Scooters that race through the town and inside shops!
A speed limit is needed for the Fatritis Motability Scooters that race through the town and inside shops! warneboy
  • Score: 28

9:50pm Fri 4 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.
On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.
Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people)
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.[/p][/quote]On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.[/p][/quote]Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people) NakedDancer
  • Score: -13

9:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

sooty001 says...

Fair play to the Editor Kevin Ward he certainly knows which stories to publish that will get the most comments.
Just read 39 comments and he has certainly come up trumps with this one, this should last all week-end, and could end up in a punch up lol.
Fair play to the Editor Kevin Ward he certainly knows which stories to publish that will get the most comments. Just read 39 comments and he has certainly come up trumps with this one, this should last all week-end, and could end up in a punch up lol. sooty001
  • Score: 18

10:06pm Fri 4 Jul 14

displayed says...

Its amazing what a little nato summat will bring out, inner city................
....
Its amazing what a little nato summat will bring out, inner city................ .... displayed
  • Score: -24

10:54pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.
On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.
Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people)
Oh yes? Old retirees and whinging critters club? As i said before doing what's complained about by Thomas. Are you his appointed spokesman?
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.[/p][/quote]On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.[/p][/quote]Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people)[/p][/quote]Oh yes? Old retirees and whinging critters club? As i said before doing what's complained about by Thomas. Are you his appointed spokesman? Woodgnome
  • Score: 13

11:17pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scraptheWAG says...

good its about time the shell suit wearing, staffi owning single mum incapacity benfit claiming crowd that run around newport were put into their place
good its about time the shell suit wearing, staffi owning single mum incapacity benfit claiming crowd that run around newport were put into their place scraptheWAG
  • Score: -31

11:49pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dnd866 says...

scraptheWAG - you seem to have some inside information as the article only states 'a man' was fined. Why are you assuming only chavs ride bikes through town?
scraptheWAG - you seem to have some inside information as the article only states 'a man' was fined. Why are you assuming only chavs ride bikes through town? dnd866
  • Score: 27

12:06am Sat 5 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
blue lagoon 2 wrote:
A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.
Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.
Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.
Silly bully troll.
Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.
On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.
Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people)
Oh yes? Old retirees and whinging critters club? As i said before doing what's complained about by Thomas. Are you his appointed spokesman?
There you go again. Bully troll.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blue lagoon 2[/bold] wrote: A few of the above comments confirm my opinion that most cyclists do, in fact, have a chip on their shoulder. They are not above the law, a rule is a rule for everyone to adhere to. I often see cyclists riding 2 abreast on a busy road not giving any thought to other road users.[/p][/quote]Really ? I don't think any cyclists have commented. you can only deduce something about non-cyclists from the above comments.[/p][/quote]Know when you've lost the argument and retire gracefully. You make it up as you go along.[/p][/quote]Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]Woodgnome doesn't accept everyone on a comments page is entitled to an opinion (unless you agree with him). He doesn't understand you can't win or lose an argument on a comments page. Agreed - he's a bully troll.[/p][/quote]On any objective assessment of the comments on this item your assertions are patently untrue. You both also seem to be doing precisely what you complain about.[/p][/quote]Read your comments again. Only ever insulting other contributors (oh and joining with Karlomarko insulting overweight people)[/p][/quote]Oh yes? Old retirees and whinging critters club? As i said before doing what's complained about by Thomas. Are you his appointed spokesman?[/p][/quote]There you go again. Bully troll. NakedDancer
  • Score: -15

9:38am Sat 5 Jul 14

Hevsym says...

My Daughter was robbed of her bag 18 months ago, as she came out of the bank with her christmas savings to do her shopping. Lad on a bike cycling up and down commercial street. He made off with her bag and the £500 she had just drawn out which was put in her bag inside the bank and was not made visable outside at all. I immedietly gave her £500 to replace it, but I will never be able to give her her confidence back, I will never be able to enable her to feel comfortable in the City centre at any time of day, and I will never be able to see her feel secure while people are cycling alongside her in bust places weaving in and out of pedestrians. She works hard to save up and somne no-mark on a bike 3 sizes too small for him took it in an instant and now she wears a metal clasp to attach her bag to her person.
I am all for cycling for enjoyment and to keep fit, but get them well away from pedestrianised areas. If the fine works...I am all for it!
My Daughter was robbed of her bag 18 months ago, as she came out of the bank with her christmas savings to do her shopping. Lad on a bike cycling up and down commercial street. He made off with her bag and the £500 she had just drawn out which was put in her bag inside the bank and was not made visable outside at all. I immedietly gave her £500 to replace it, but I will never be able to give her her confidence back, I will never be able to enable her to feel comfortable in the City centre at any time of day, and I will never be able to see her feel secure while people are cycling alongside her in bust places weaving in and out of pedestrians. She works hard to save up and somne no-mark on a bike 3 sizes too small for him took it in an instant and now she wears a metal clasp to attach her bag to her person. I am all for cycling for enjoyment and to keep fit, but get them well away from pedestrianised areas. If the fine works...I am all for it! Hevsym
  • Score: 13

10:19am Sat 5 Jul 14

charlie, newport says...

Sympathise fully with your daughter's experience, Hevsym, but would suggest the main issue there was the presence of a criminal, not the fact he/she was on a bike. If the criminal had been on foot, we wouldn't be calling for a ban on pedestrians. Hopefully the improved Police focus on the City Centre will help address the crime side of things.

But in terms of this story, I support the fine. Everyone knows you shouldn't cycle through the pedestrianised area. And I agree with the reasons for that ban. So if you do, and then refuse to get off your bike when asked by PCSO, you deserve a £50 fine.

There are plenty of cycle/footpaths around to use, such as the riverside footpath. Cycling down a busy (#optimist) shopping street is daft, and risky.

And yes I am a cyclist (but not down Commercial Street)
Sympathise fully with your daughter's experience, Hevsym, but would suggest the main issue there was the presence of a criminal, not the fact he/she was on a bike. If the criminal had been on foot, we wouldn't be calling for a ban on pedestrians. Hopefully the improved Police focus on the City Centre will help address the crime side of things. But in terms of this story, I support the fine. Everyone knows you shouldn't cycle through the pedestrianised area. And I agree with the reasons for that ban. So if you do, and then refuse to get off your bike when asked by PCSO, you deserve a £50 fine. There are plenty of cycle/footpaths around to use, such as the riverside footpath. Cycling down a busy (#optimist) shopping street is daft, and risky. And yes I am a cyclist (but not down Commercial Street) charlie, newport
  • Score: 18

10:23am Sat 5 Jul 14

jimmysmith says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
the only way to clean newport up is to nuke it.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]the only way to clean newport up is to nuke it. jimmysmith
  • Score: -17

11:03am Sat 5 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

charlie, newport wrote:
Sympathise fully with your daughter's experience, Hevsym, but would suggest the main issue there was the presence of a criminal, not the fact he/she was on a bike. If the criminal had been on foot, we wouldn't be calling for a ban on pedestrians. Hopefully the improved Police focus on the City Centre will help address the crime side of things.

But in terms of this story, I support the fine. Everyone knows you shouldn't cycle through the pedestrianised area. And I agree with the reasons for that ban. So if you do, and then refuse to get off your bike when asked by PCSO, you deserve a £50 fine.

There are plenty of cycle/footpaths around to use, such as the riverside footpath. Cycling down a busy (#optimist) shopping street is daft, and risky.

And yes I am a cyclist (but not down Commercial Street)
Indeed, my mum was robbed by a pedestrian in Newport. Focus on clearing out the thieves and low lives not low priority soft targets like cycling.
[quote][p][bold]charlie, newport[/bold] wrote: Sympathise fully with your daughter's experience, Hevsym, but would suggest the main issue there was the presence of a criminal, not the fact he/she was on a bike. If the criminal had been on foot, we wouldn't be calling for a ban on pedestrians. Hopefully the improved Police focus on the City Centre will help address the crime side of things. But in terms of this story, I support the fine. Everyone knows you shouldn't cycle through the pedestrianised area. And I agree with the reasons for that ban. So if you do, and then refuse to get off your bike when asked by PCSO, you deserve a £50 fine. There are plenty of cycle/footpaths around to use, such as the riverside footpath. Cycling down a busy (#optimist) shopping street is daft, and risky. And yes I am a cyclist (but not down Commercial Street)[/p][/quote]Indeed, my mum was robbed by a pedestrian in Newport. Focus on clearing out the thieves and low lives not low priority soft targets like cycling. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -10

11:22am Sat 5 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.
The studies indicate a high level of collisions
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport[/p][/quote]Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.[/p][/quote]The studies indicate a high level of collisions Bobevans
  • Score: 5

12:37pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Bobevans wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.
The studies indicate a high level of collisions
Don't make it up Bob. Attached stats from ONS show 0 UK deaths from pedestrian/cyclist collisions in 2009 and 2 in 2010. The stats also don't indicate who was to blame. https://www.whatdoth
eyknow.com/request/u
k_accident_statistic
s_for_pedes

Before anyone says 2 is too many i agree. The fact remains you are massively more likely to be knocked over by a pedestrian than a cycle. Don't worry - be happy - you aren't going to be hit by a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport[/p][/quote]Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.[/p][/quote]The studies indicate a high level of collisions[/p][/quote]Don't make it up Bob. Attached stats from ONS show 0 UK deaths from pedestrian/cyclist collisions in 2009 and 2 in 2010. The stats also don't indicate who was to blame. https://www.whatdoth eyknow.com/request/u k_accident_statistic s_for_pedes Before anyone says 2 is too many i agree. The fact remains you are massively more likely to be knocked over by a pedestrian than a cycle. Don't worry - be happy - you aren't going to be hit by a cyclist. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -20

12:57pm Sat 5 Jul 14

rmh1989 says...

How about tackling crime rather than just petty little offenses???
How about tackling crime rather than just petty little offenses??? rmh1989
  • Score: -13

2:40pm Sat 5 Jul 14

coalpicker says...

Being a nimble old guy I have just escaped collisions with cyclists in Newport by the skin of my dentures there is no doubt the fine was just .
However I must ask the question when are the police and their deputies
going to crack down on cyclists who after dark do not carry lights ,I have also nearly lost my sixty year plus no claim bonus by just missing these
Divine wind lunatics , and I have been to Spec Savers .
Being a nimble old guy I have just escaped collisions with cyclists in Newport by the skin of my dentures there is no doubt the fine was just . However I must ask the question when are the police and their deputies going to crack down on cyclists who after dark do not carry lights ,I have also nearly lost my sixty year plus no claim bonus by just missing these Divine wind lunatics , and I have been to Spec Savers . coalpicker
  • Score: 14

2:45pm Sat 5 Jul 14

mikewelsh says...

Was it ... Norman Tebbit.?
Was it ... Norman Tebbit.? mikewelsh
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Sid Bonkers says...

So what do we learn from all this? Some think fining the cyclist was correct and some think cyclists aren't a problem!
I believe the New York zero tolerance principle famously succeeded on the basis that if you stamp on the little crimes there is a knock-on effect in society up the scale by a reduction in the bigger crimes without correspondingly more effort. By stamping on minor offences, in time the murder rate was dramatically reduced. That's New York for you.
So what do we learn from all this? Some think fining the cyclist was correct and some think cyclists aren't a problem! I believe the New York zero tolerance principle famously succeeded on the basis that if you stamp on the little crimes there is a knock-on effect in society up the scale by a reduction in the bigger crimes without correspondingly more effort. By stamping on minor offences, in time the murder rate was dramatically reduced. That's New York for you. Sid Bonkers
  • Score: 14

3:51pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Roger Elliot says...

I was run into by one of these fools! Fortunately I was not hurt because I put my hands out and brought him to an abrupt halt. I called him %$£"ing idiot and he just laughed. It would have been no laughing matter if I had been a small child or a feeble disabled or old person! They seem to think the law does not apply to them so UP WITH THIS SORT OF THING POLICE OFFICERS and less disguising yourself as hippies and spying on innocent protestors.

PS There is a NO RIGHT TURN sign next to the Old Art College which is constantly ignored by motorists. Also a danger to pedestrians. Perhaps a camera there is required also?
I was run into by one of these fools! Fortunately I was not hurt because I put my hands out and brought him to an abrupt halt. I called him %$£"ing idiot and he just laughed. It would have been no laughing matter if I had been a small child or a feeble disabled or old person! They seem to think the law does not apply to them so UP WITH THIS SORT OF THING POLICE OFFICERS and less disguising yourself as hippies and spying on innocent protestors. PS There is a NO RIGHT TURN sign next to the Old Art College which is constantly ignored by motorists. Also a danger to pedestrians. Perhaps a camera there is required also? Roger Elliot
  • Score: 18

6:08pm Sat 5 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Sid Bonkers wrote:
So what do we learn from all this? Some think fining the cyclist was correct and some think cyclists aren't a problem!
I believe the New York zero tolerance principle famously succeeded on the basis that if you stamp on the little crimes there is a knock-on effect in society up the scale by a reduction in the bigger crimes without correspondingly more effort. By stamping on minor offences, in time the murder rate was dramatically reduced. That's New York for you.
I doubt cycling made it onto the extensive list of 'crimes' New York had to contend with. Also New York is one of the most advanced cities in the world for creating cycling infrastructure and championing cycling initiatives as a vital part of the commercial infrastructure, notably delivery & couriers. Theres a whole Wikipedia page on cycling in New York.
[quote][p][bold]Sid Bonkers[/bold] wrote: So what do we learn from all this? Some think fining the cyclist was correct and some think cyclists aren't a problem! I believe the New York zero tolerance principle famously succeeded on the basis that if you stamp on the little crimes there is a knock-on effect in society up the scale by a reduction in the bigger crimes without correspondingly more effort. By stamping on minor offences, in time the murder rate was dramatically reduced. That's New York for you.[/p][/quote]I doubt cycling made it onto the extensive list of 'crimes' New York had to contend with. Also New York is one of the most advanced cities in the world for creating cycling infrastructure and championing cycling initiatives as a vital part of the commercial infrastructure, notably delivery & couriers. Theres a whole Wikipedia page on cycling in New York. NakedDancer
  • Score: -16

7:13pm Sat 5 Jul 14

maggiesian says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts

It is about time the law was enforced in Newport
Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.
They almost never happen because pedestrians jump out of the way! They should not have to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]They are actually very common. Most do not get reported though as there is no way to identify these cycling louts It is about time the law was enforced in Newport[/p][/quote]Re pedestrian/cycle combined areas theres lots of reputable studies you can google on the internet that have studied flows by video over extended periods of time and count collisions/near misses. Collisions almost never happen.[/p][/quote]They almost never happen because pedestrians jump out of the way! They should not have to do so. maggiesian
  • Score: 11

7:26pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Sid Bonkers says...

It wasn't my intention to bring New York into this but zero tolerance is often mentioned in relation to different issues. Yes, cycling is very popular in New York City now but if there are violations seen they are quickly dealt with. For example cycling on footways is not permitted and cycle lanes are separated from the pedestrians There's a lot of skaters too but generally they don't do as much damage as a bicycle in a collision. New Yorkers are pretty vociferous about breaches of cycling etiquette and vice versa as you can imagine.
It wasn't my intention to bring New York into this but zero tolerance is often mentioned in relation to different issues. Yes, cycling is very popular in New York City now but if there are violations seen they are quickly dealt with. For example cycling on footways is not permitted and cycle lanes are separated from the pedestrians There's a lot of skaters too but generally they don't do as much damage as a bicycle in a collision. New Yorkers are pretty vociferous about breaches of cycling etiquette and vice versa as you can imagine. Sid Bonkers
  • Score: 15

11:25pm Sat 5 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Good point well made Sid, though comparisons with a large modern advanced city like New York are tricky - Newport has no integrated cycling policy or plans. The uk stats show actual collision rates are virtually non existent but I understand managing the fear of collision is important to sections of the community. I agree zero tolerance as regards ASB is critical to improving Newport City centre. I just don't see cycling high on anyone's agenda - other than a soft target headline to feed some argus readers
Good point well made Sid, though comparisons with a large modern advanced city like New York are tricky - Newport has no integrated cycling policy or plans. The uk stats show actual collision rates are virtually non existent but I understand managing the fear of collision is important to sections of the community. I agree zero tolerance as regards ASB is critical to improving Newport City centre. I just don't see cycling high on anyone's agenda - other than a soft target headline to feed some argus readers Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -18

8:55am Sun 6 Jul 14

Ollie254 says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.
Whinging retirees are probably those most in fear of being knocked over by a full grown cyclist riding at speed. Knocks and bumps are no problem when you are younger but become significant with advancing age and fraility. You too will become old one day and may understand then. In addition using Amsterdam as an example is wide of the mark. Cycling anarchy is how you could best describe cyclists in that city with the first words used by the taxi / bus driver as you arrive in that city being "look out for the bikes!" as they zoom by at speed on the road, cycle way alongside the road, pavement and even porticos of shops........madness
. In addition perhaps some action could be taken re the cyclists who travel at full tilt through parks, canal tow paths etc often brushing shoulders as they barge past with little regard for pedestrians. The elderly are sometimes hard of hearing and can't hear their approach. Comparison with yobs and troublemakers is easily done.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: You won't get any balance from the whingeing retirees that populate the Argus comments page David. All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam). I was in Newport Monday and only saw one cyclist, in his suit probably going to the office and cycling responsibly. Clearing the town centre of drunks, druggies, care in the community, swearing yobs, beggars and troublemakers is the priority.[/p][/quote]Whinging retirees are probably those most in fear of being knocked over by a full grown cyclist riding at speed. Knocks and bumps are no problem when you are younger but become significant with advancing age and fraility. You too will become old one day and may understand then. In addition using Amsterdam as an example is wide of the mark. Cycling anarchy is how you could best describe cyclists in that city with the first words used by the taxi / bus driver as you arrive in that city being "look out for the bikes!" as they zoom by at speed on the road, cycle way alongside the road, pavement and even porticos of shops........madness . In addition perhaps some action could be taken re the cyclists who travel at full tilt through parks, canal tow paths etc often brushing shoulders as they barge past with little regard for pedestrians. The elderly are sometimes hard of hearing and can't hear their approach. Comparison with yobs and troublemakers is easily done. Ollie254
  • Score: 13

11:17am Sun 6 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
[quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 9

11:20am Sun 6 Jul 14

Thomas O'Malley says...

Well I am retired and arguably old. I'm not a cyclist but one of the biggest sectors of growth in cycling is amongst retired people. The vast majority of cyclists are responsible they don't want a collision any more than a pedestrian. They are just people on a bike - not an alien race. You will always get the odd idiot but I honestly can't remember seeing one recently. Again, all the studies show collisions virtually never happen. Fining soft target cyclists won't make me feel safer in Newport - but sorting out the thieves, drunks, druggies, card in the community, beggars, thugs, shouters and urinators will.
Well I am retired and arguably old. I'm not a cyclist but one of the biggest sectors of growth in cycling is amongst retired people. The vast majority of cyclists are responsible they don't want a collision any more than a pedestrian. They are just people on a bike - not an alien race. You will always get the odd idiot but I honestly can't remember seeing one recently. Again, all the studies show collisions virtually never happen. Fining soft target cyclists won't make me feel safer in Newport - but sorting out the thieves, drunks, druggies, card in the community, beggars, thugs, shouters and urinators will. Thomas O'Malley
  • Score: -17

11:42am Sun 6 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France. NakedDancer
  • Score: -20

11:47am Sun 6 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!!
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.[/p][/quote]I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!! Woodgnome
  • Score: 22

11:59am Sun 6 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!!
you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.[/p][/quote]I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!![/p][/quote]you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll. NakedDancer
  • Score: -26

12:05pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!!
you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll.
You don't like what people have to say about the inconsiderate type of cyclist (no one minds the considerate ones).

Oh dear ND you really are a repetitive silly billy bully troll.
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.[/p][/quote]I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!![/p][/quote]you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]You don't like what people have to say about the inconsiderate type of cyclist (no one minds the considerate ones). Oh dear ND you really are a repetitive silly billy bully troll. Woodgnome
  • Score: 19

12:38pm Sun 6 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

I think a great many people may have glanced at this thread out of some sympathy with cyclists and their greenwash. They will leave only with a deep sense of the arrogance and insularity of the two cycling "advocates" here. P.R. and public awareness is obviously not their forte. I'm hoping it's not too typical or a backlash awaits. As I said above its about "culture"...and that seems a foreign country.
I think a great many people may have glanced at this thread out of some sympathy with cyclists and their greenwash. They will leave only with a deep sense of the arrogance and insularity of the two cycling "advocates" here. P.R. and public awareness is obviously not their forte. I'm hoping it's not too typical or a backlash awaits. As I said above its about "culture"...and that seems a foreign country. KarloMarko
  • Score: 12

2:45pm Sun 6 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Ah the other bully troll that insults overweight people is back with more off topic insults. If you bothered to try to understand my comments you'd see I'm not a cyclist or pro cycling - I simply think other things are more pressing to cleanup the town centre. That's my view and your bullying won't change that view or stop me discussing it - you'll never accept that's what comments pages are for. I'm very happy for anyone else to have a different opinion. Whereas you have to insult anyone that dare have an opinion you think is different to yours. So I'm opinionated but you are bully trolls - there's the difference.
Ah the other bully troll that insults overweight people is back with more off topic insults. If you bothered to try to understand my comments you'd see I'm not a cyclist or pro cycling - I simply think other things are more pressing to cleanup the town centre. That's my view and your bullying won't change that view or stop me discussing it - you'll never accept that's what comments pages are for. I'm very happy for anyone else to have a different opinion. Whereas you have to insult anyone that dare have an opinion you think is different to yours. So I'm opinionated but you are bully trolls - there's the difference. NakedDancer
  • Score: -6

3:15pm Sun 6 Jul 14

NakedDancer says...

Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
NakedDancer wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!!
you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll.
You don't like what people have to say about the inconsiderate type of cyclist (no one minds the considerate ones).

Oh dear ND you really are a repetitive silly billy bully troll.
I haven't commented on considerate or inconsiderate cyclists. Yet more made up trolling from you bully boy. Of course I, nor anyone else, would condone inconsiderate cycling (or pedestrians or drivers for that matter).
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.[/p][/quote]I would say that's very trollish dismissal of other peoples views ND. You and Thomas really do want the last pro cyclist word don't you? OK - we get your point of view!!![/p][/quote]you can't dictate how many comments someone makes just because you don't like what they say. Silly bully troll.[/p][/quote]You don't like what people have to say about the inconsiderate type of cyclist (no one minds the considerate ones). Oh dear ND you really are a repetitive silly billy bully troll.[/p][/quote]I haven't commented on considerate or inconsiderate cyclists. Yet more made up trolling from you bully boy. Of course I, nor anyone else, would condone inconsiderate cycling (or pedestrians or drivers for that matter). NakedDancer
  • Score: -3

3:20pm Sun 6 Jul 14

KarloMarko says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Ah the other bully troll that insults overweight people is back with more off topic insults. If you bothered to try to understand my comments you'd see I'm not a cyclist or pro cycling - I simply think other things are more pressing to cleanup the town centre. That's my view and your bullying won't change that view or stop me discussing it - you'll never accept that's what comments pages are for. I'm very happy for anyone else to have a different opinion. Whereas you have to insult anyone that dare have an opinion you think is different to yours. So I'm opinionated but you are bully trolls - there's the difference.
Yeah, right, NOW I get it! You is SPARTACUS! Watch out for the lions...
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: Ah the other bully troll that insults overweight people is back with more off topic insults. If you bothered to try to understand my comments you'd see I'm not a cyclist or pro cycling - I simply think other things are more pressing to cleanup the town centre. That's my view and your bullying won't change that view or stop me discussing it - you'll never accept that's what comments pages are for. I'm very happy for anyone else to have a different opinion. Whereas you have to insult anyone that dare have an opinion you think is different to yours. So I'm opinionated but you are bully trolls - there's the difference.[/p][/quote]Yeah, right, NOW I get it! You is SPARTACUS! Watch out for the lions... KarloMarko
  • Score: 1

3:25pm Sun 6 Jul 14

Woodgnome says...

NakedDancer wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
-trigg- wrote:
Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is.

Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.
No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....
Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.
Your true colours revealed ND. Your mask is off.
[quote][p][bold]NakedDancer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]-trigg-[/bold] wrote: Whilst I'm delighted to see that a cyclist has finally received a fine, the very fact that it is deemed to be a newsworthy event shows how rare this is. Although in the interests of fairness, I still see more people driving whilst using handsets than I do cyclists riding on the pavement or shooting through red lights.[/p][/quote]No rare in Maindee or chepstow Road,but a common and daily event. These syclists use EVERYTHING but the road to pedal on, go through red lights go straight across car lanes and bus lanes,ride on the wrong side of the road, quite frankly we are getting fed up of diving into the main road to avoid being knocked over, I have hearing loss and have no idea they are coming behind me. Also mothers with prams buggies, and disabled driving these motorized buggies are a bloody danger too. Young mums are hostile and rude as well, and will think nothing or ramming the back of your legs to get out of the way, the disabled buggies can break your leg, even at 5mph. They too assume everyone will have eyes in the back of their head or can hear you shouting to 'get the FCUK out of the way' we don't. Let's not even start with the morons with mobile phones !!! we can only hope they all hospitalize themselves before they do us....[/p][/quote]Such a fine example of intolerance it's almost funny. Someone with hearing loss criticising disabled people. Ban the mums, buggies and mobile phones. I must go to Maindee to see the ninja pensioners with broken legs caused by disabled buggies diving out of the way of the Tour de France.[/p][/quote]Your true colours revealed ND. Your mask is off. Woodgnome
  • Score: 1

10:50am Mon 7 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

I can only point out what I see. Yesterday I went to town and back and noted 9 cyclists none on the road, all on the pavement, yet, the road was fairly quiet and clear. Also if you cannot hear well and don't have eyes in the back of your head, then it can prove every unsettling to have a speeding cyclist go straight between you and your child on a pavement at speed. As regards to other disabled people, ignorance is no excuse, they should realise more than most, that people with their back to you maybe cannot hear you coming. Short of me walking about with "I Am deaf so please don't knock me over..' written on back... I take the risk every day on a pavement that is for my use, not theirs. If the roads are unsafe for cyclists because car drivers need a white stick or feel I am bigger and harder than you, or the roads are unsafe to cycle on, take it up with the transport people, don't ride over us. Many cyclists seem to think the highway code is for others not them... much like the roads. Even where cycle lanes are on newport Bridge they appear to not realize which side they are to cycle ON. I'm sorely tempted to stick my foot out as they speed past....
I can only point out what I see. Yesterday I went to town and back and noted 9 cyclists none on the road, all on the pavement, yet, the road was fairly quiet and clear. Also if you cannot hear well and don't have eyes in the back of your head, then it can prove every unsettling to have a speeding cyclist go straight between you and your child on a pavement at speed. As regards to other disabled people, ignorance is no excuse, they should realise more than most, that people with their back to you maybe cannot hear you coming. Short of me walking about with "I Am deaf so please don't knock me over..' written on back... I take the risk every day on a pavement that is for my use, not theirs. If the roads are unsafe for cyclists because car drivers need a white stick or feel I am bigger and harder than you, or the roads are unsafe to cycle on, take it up with the transport people, don't ride over us. Many cyclists seem to think the highway code is for others not them... much like the roads. Even where cycle lanes are on newport Bridge they appear to not realize which side they are to cycle ON. I'm sorely tempted to stick my foot out as they speed past.... Mervyn James
  • Score: 5

10:30pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Independentvoter says...

It must be all this hot weather - I just realised why I don't bother contributing to the argus column much these days - a cyclist refused to get off his bike hahahaha and you are all arguing about it hahahaha
It must be all this hot weather - I just realised why I don't bother contributing to the argus column much these days - a cyclist refused to get off his bike hahahaha and you are all arguing about it hahahaha Independentvoter
  • Score: -2

6:58am Tue 8 Jul 14

Dai Rear says...

Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Well I am retired and arguably old. I'm not a cyclist but one of the biggest sectors of growth in cycling is amongst retired people. The vast majority of cyclists are responsible they don't want a collision any more than a pedestrian. They are just people on a bike - not an alien race. You will always get the odd idiot but I honestly can't remember seeing one recently. Again, all the studies show collisions virtually never happen. Fining soft target cyclists won't make me feel safer in Newport - but sorting out the thieves, drunks, druggies, card in the community, beggars, thugs, shouters and urinators will.
Word of warning Tom. f you go to Mallorca in the club cycling season with such a benevolent attitude towards cyclists be very careful indeed. They're not Welsh and I don't think I'll identify their country of origin (not Spain) but very many of them are profoundly unpleasant.
[quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: Well I am retired and arguably old. I'm not a cyclist but one of the biggest sectors of growth in cycling is amongst retired people. The vast majority of cyclists are responsible they don't want a collision any more than a pedestrian. They are just people on a bike - not an alien race. You will always get the odd idiot but I honestly can't remember seeing one recently. Again, all the studies show collisions virtually never happen. Fining soft target cyclists won't make me feel safer in Newport - but sorting out the thieves, drunks, druggies, card in the community, beggars, thugs, shouters and urinators will.[/p][/quote]Word of warning Tom. f you go to Mallorca in the club cycling season with such a benevolent attitude towards cyclists be very careful indeed. They're not Welsh and I don't think I'll identify their country of origin (not Spain) but very many of them are profoundly unpleasant. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

8:14am Tue 8 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

Independentvoter wrote:
It must be all this hot weather - I just realised why I don't bother contributing to the argus column much these days - a cyclist refused to get off his bike hahahaha and you are all arguing about it hahahaha
Your non-contribution is much appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]Independentvoter[/bold] wrote: It must be all this hot weather - I just realised why I don't bother contributing to the argus column much these days - a cyclist refused to get off his bike hahahaha and you are all arguing about it hahahaha[/p][/quote]Your non-contribution is much appreciated. Mervyn James
  • Score: 2

1:15pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

rmh1989 wrote:
How about tackling crime rather than just petty little offenses???
If you want to clean up the place then you must have a 'zero tolerance' approach and that means clamping down on everything, including cycling in pedestrianised areas.
[quote][p][bold]rmh1989[/bold] wrote: How about tackling crime rather than just petty little offenses???[/p][/quote]If you want to clean up the place then you must have a 'zero tolerance' approach and that means clamping down on everything, including cycling in pedestrianised areas. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 1

6:37pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

Not much effect, there were cyclists going through town centre today.
Not much effect, there were cyclists going through town centre today. Mervyn James
  • Score: 5

1:08pm Wed 9 Jul 14

grandmammamia says...

Woodgnome wrote:
Thomas O'Malley wrote:
Woodgnome wrote:
KarloMarko wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.
Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,
The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen.
All the cities you harp on and on about have a long history of cycling so that its part of the culture there. Cycling in pedestrianized zones in Newport is not part of the culture. The cyclist was properly fined - so get over it. PS you have no clue whether commentators are old or young.
There is no need for anyone to be cycling in the pedestrian area of Newport centre There is a perfectly good cycle lane running alongside the river.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thomas O'Malley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: "All the studies show that collisions between cyclists and pedestrians are so rare as to be irrelevant even in cities with high volumes of cyclists (eg Amsterdam).". WELL, not so. "irrelevant" if you are the one hit by a stray cyclist running out of pavement. A friend of mine was slammed into by a caring cyclist in Bristol - where bikes are "blessed" by the Mayor - and had her right leg broken. Not so b.funny at her age. And not so very "irrelevant". As for the "whingeing retirees" as you so thoughtfully put it, in this regard they have rights and a right to be concerned. Get over yourself...and off yer bike.[/p][/quote]Thomas is swimming against the tide of opinion,[/p][/quote]The argus old critters club opinion you mean ? If you open your eyes you'll see cycling has massively increased in popularity for economic, transport and health reasons. Forward thinking cities like Cambridge are building cycling into their transport policies. Or you can swim against the tide and moan about it. You want taxes spent on policing cyclists instead of druggies, thugs, thieves and low lives due to fear of being knocked over. It's not going to happen.[/p][/quote]All the cities you harp on and on about have a long history of cycling so that its part of the culture there. Cycling in pedestrianized zones in Newport is not part of the culture. The cyclist was properly fined - so get over it. PS you have no clue whether commentators are old or young.[/p][/quote]There is no need for anyone to be cycling in the pedestrian area of Newport centre There is a perfectly good cycle lane running alongside the river. grandmammamia
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Thu 10 Jul 14

GogExile says...

There is a salient point that seems to have been missed here. The individual wasn't fined for cycling, they were fined for refusing to get off their bike and push it through a pedestrianised area. Sounds like a self-important idiot got what they deserved to me.
There is a salient point that seems to have been missed here. The individual wasn't fined for cycling, they were fined for refusing to get off their bike and push it through a pedestrianised area. Sounds like a self-important idiot got what they deserved to me. GogExile
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Sun 27 Jul 14

scraptheWAG says...

look at the picture oh how newport has fallen since devolution
look at the picture oh how newport has fallen since devolution scraptheWAG
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree