Richmond hill

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, Happier diner said:

Why are motorists paying any more that car using cyclists. They are paying the same.

Why should I, as a car using cyclist pay for facilities that are of not value to me whatsoever?

I am still confused

If cyclists were contributing, as cyclists, to the facilities that are deemed necessary for them then they could and should have more input into the practicality or viability of those facilities. If they are unfit for purpose, take it up with your elected.

As it is, they are been given exclusive use of those facilities without making anything like the sort of contributions that those facilities are costing to install.

It is the User Pays principle.

[Roger Mexico]

24 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Probably very similar to the Sloc being pristinely resurfaced a few years ago.  Those hill/back roads don't have much in the way of drainage, pavements, pipes or cables.  So actually giving them a nice resurface is really easy in comparison to 'A' roads or in the towns etc, where all of the mentioned has to be worked around. 

Exactly - it was made explicitly clear by Gawne before one of the Tynwald Committees.  The main purpose of deciding which roads to work on was how easy it would be for the contractors.  I could never work out if he was being incredibly thick or dropping Black in it.  If so Black was too thick to notice and everyone was too polite to mention that about the only householder who would benefit from the Sloc being resurfaced was Phil Gawne.

Those who are complaining about a subsidised minority should realise that the actual subsidised minority here is the construction industry having money showered on them to carry out projects that are designed to give them an easy life rather than benefit any other section of the Island's residents.

Anyway if you want the details, they are in the WQ response to Ashford's question and this is the amounts spent by route over the last five years:

[The Phantom]

14 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Exactly - it was made explicitly clear by Gawne before one of the Tynwald Committees.  The main purpose of deciding which roads to work on was how easy it would be for the contractors.  I could never work out if he was being incredibly thick or dropping Black in it.  If so Black was too thick to notice and everyone was too polite to mention that about the only householder who would benefit from the Sloc being resurfaced was Phil Gawne.

Those who are complaining about a subsidised minority should realise that the actual subsidised minority here is the construction industry having money showered on them to carry out projects that are designed to give them an easy life rather than benefit any other section of the Island's residents.

Anyway if you want the details, they are in the WQ response to Ashford's question and this is the amounts spent by route over the last five years:

I remembered this, but couldn't remember which MHK it was that effectively said 'the Sloc was done because it was easy'.   Lovely road though! 

Yes the Fishers Hill to Gansey cycle path is also poorly thought out, implemented and accordingly rarely used. 

[b4mbi]

3 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Yes the Fishers Hill to Gansey cycle path is also poorly thought out, implemented and accordingly rarely used. 

 100% agree. Every day this week on the drive to work I've passed cyclists using the road rather than this "cycle lane/footpath", what a waste of f'ing time.

 

[The Phantom]

26 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

 100% agree. Every day this week on the drive to work I've passed cyclists using the road rather than this "cycle lane/footpath", what a waste of f'ing time.

 

They're self validating.  If they work then they used (Peel Road, old railway tracks etc). 

If they are shit for whatever reason, the aforementioned, Pully Bridge then they won't be used.  To be honest both of these I would argue are actually potentially more dangerous for cyclist and pedestrians, than just using the road. 

[b4mbi]

54 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

They're self validating.  If they work then they used (Peel Road, old railway tracks etc). 

If they are shit for whatever reason, the aforementioned, Pully Bridge then they won't be used.  To be honest both of these I would argue are actually potentially more dangerous for cyclist and pedestrians, than just using the road. 

again totally agree.

I've used the pully bridge one, cycling back from Peel into Douglas, and it just doesn't flow in the into town direction.

You end up on the pavement for half of Peel road after you pass those bollards and presumably are supposed to cross over one of the Island's busiest roads at some point to use the green cycle lane on the other side of Peel Road, before the thing stops at the Brown Bobby.. and then it's a fight with the traffic on the road to get into the centre.

Poor design, wasted money. Surprised much?

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

 100% agree. Every day this week on the drive to work I've passed cyclists using the road rather than this "cycle lane/footpath", what a waste of f'ing time.

 

Yeah. I cycle on Gansey sometimes. Never use the cycle track. More dangerous than the road IMO.

[Happier diner]

9 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

again totally agree.

I've used the pully bridge one, cycling back from Peel into Douglas, and it just doesn't flow in the into town direction.

You end up on the pavement for half of Peel road after you pass those bollards and presumably are supposed to cross over one of the Island's busiest roads at some point to use the green cycle lane on the other side of Peel Road, before the thing stops at the Brown Bobby.. and then it's a fight with the traffic on the road to get into the centre.

Poor design, wasted money. Surprised much?

I agree. The strange thing is that this guy that advises them is supposed to be a cyclist himself.

[The Phantom]

12 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

again totally agree.

I've used the pully bridge one, cycling back from Peel into Douglas, and it just doesn't flow in the into town direction.

You end up on the pavement for half of Peel road after you pass those bollards and presumably are supposed to cross over one of the Island's busiest roads at some point to use the green cycle lane on the other side of Peel Road, before the thing stops at the Brown Bobby.. and then it's a fight with the traffic on the road to get into the centre.

Poor design, wasted money. Surprised much?

Yup, it kinda works on the way from Douglas towards Pully, if you do some erratic swerving and cone dodging. 

The other way is just stupid.  I think you're supposed to use the Pelican crossing, but officially you'd have to dismount off your bike! 

Edited August 11, 2022 by The Phantom

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

 

It is the User Pays principle.

You are confusing the 'User pays principle' with the 'totally impractical and ill thought out Non-Believer principle'

Are you going to chase toddlers on their little bikes for a contribution?

How do you identify all the cyclists that will need to pay. Change them to toll lanes maybe

[quilp]

1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

I remembered this, but couldn't remember which MHK it was that effectively said 'the Sloc was done because it was easy'.   Lovely road though!

It was Gawne, though he did say that they had to use up what remained of their budget, somehow. 

[Non-Believer]

6 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

You are confusing the 'User pays principle' with the 'totally impractical and ill thought out Non-Believer principle'

Are you going to chase toddlers on their little bikes for a contribution?

How do you identify all the cyclists that will need to pay. Change them to toll lanes maybe

Given that some of these bicycles cost many thousands of pounds, a £5 registration fee and £10 annual tax would hardly be oppressive.

And why not display a small registration number, it would also assist with identification. Such as the case of the individual who sailed through the red lights on Parliament Sq Ramsey yesterday evening, causing a car driver who had legit right of way to swerve, only narrowly avoiding him. 

[Happier diner]

6 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Given that some of these bicycles cost many thousands of pounds, a £5 registration fee and £10 annual tax would hardly be oppressive.

And why not display a small registration number, it would also assist with identification. Such as the case of the individual who sailed through the red lights on Parliament Sq Ramsey yesterday evening, causing a car driver who had legit right of way to swerve, only narrowly avoiding him. 

What about the toddlers?

What about the youths on their stolen Mountain Bikes?

Why don't you answer the actual questions I ask you instead of constantly diverting?

What about all the kids that use them? You will never see anyone with a bike costing several thousand pounds using a cycle lane. Why should they be made to pay? Why should I pay. I haven't asked for a cycle lane and I don't use the ones we have because they are crap.

[Gizo]

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Yes, I see that. But my point is that motorists are paying far in excess of what even car-using-cyclists are paying in duty - for facilities that only cyclists can use.

And often (such as Pulrose Bridge) to the detriment of what efficient use motorists can make of their own road infrastructure.

Still doesn’t understand that whatever tax is gained goes into a central pot.

You can’t use motorists specifically as a determining factor in the upkeep of the road network. Even Declan pays for the roads and he doesn’t use a car. 
stop the motorist vs cyclist agenda. 

[Kopek]

Just scrap them all and stop all the moaning?