A bid to reduce the speed limit from 50 to 40 miles per hour over a ‘very dangerous stretch of road for vulnerable users’ has won support from an Isle of Wight public body.
Newchurch Parish Council (NPC) backed the reduction across Fighting Cocks Cross on the A3056 – a campaign demand of advocacy group CycleWight – at its meeting last week.
Cllr Bob Blezzard proposed NPC request the Isle of Wight Council as highways authority introduce a new 40mph speed limit.
The councillor added that he does not see a reason for any speed limit on the Island being more than 40mph.
One member abstained, telling members she had crossed the road ‘hundreds of times’ on a horse and ‘not had a problem’.
“I’ve done it when it was a 60 and not had any problems – it’s a clear stretch of road,” she added.
A representative for CycleWight told the meeting the group had been talking to the Isle of Wight Council about the possibility of reducing the speed limit from Horringford through to Branstone from 50 mph down to 40 mph
He said:
“A primary reason for doing this is the junction at Watery Lane and Bathingbourne Lane – that is part of a main round the Island cycle route.
“We receive a lot of complaints and comments from cyclists about the difficulty in crossing that road primarily because there’s no reservation in the middle of the road so they have to cross that road in one go.”
CycleWight has said the stretch of road is ‘very dangerous’ for ‘vulnerable users’.
From what I have seen on Island Roads many cyclists do
40mph+
Too be honest the island needs Islandwide cycle lanes and
20mph is plenty.
Weymouth is soon to be introducing 20mph on their
roads,. Weymouth know it makes sense.
SPEEDING KILLS!
Radical but make it a no cycling zone if it’s only dangerous to cyclists … don’t think they pay road tax or insurance !!
Road tax doesn’t exist. If you mean VED, well this is related to the damage and pollution that a ton+ of steel and glass is doing to our roads. Naturally taxing a 10kg bicycle is ludicrous. Insurance, well a lot do. You will find the top end of 90% also drive cars.
Perhaps enough of the divisive language, take a deep breath, be happy for people who are enjoying our countryside, or, heaven forbid, get on a bike yourself 😉
Unfortunately the article itself is divisive. The winner will of course be those that shout longest and hardest. I believe Andrew has in fact made a valid point?
If indeed it is seemingly one group of users that deem it dangerous, then perhaps don’t put danger their way and forbid cycles from using it altogether?
And in retort to your final statement perhaps some of these cyclists should put themselves in a vehicle stuck behind one of their lycra clad chums and see just how frustrating it can in fact be!
No, he doesn’t have a valid point. We don’t tell school children to not cross a road, we make it safer, we reduce the speed for vulnerable users. Secondly, because an advocacy group has suggested it, it doesn’t reflect the view of all who cycle similar to a motoring group advocating for change and not all drivers agreeing.
Reply of your last, Every cyclist I’ve ever known also has a car and drives it. The two are not exclusive. It’s about patience, and safe driving!It’s not difficult.
Apologies…maybe it’s a little hard for you to understand. He has an entirely valid point! If something is dangerous for a minority then we absolutely, where possible, keep that group out of harms way.
And if that means stopping their access altogether then so be it. Quite right we don’t stop children crossing roads however we do put a restriction on certain roads….motorways? Dual carriageways?
A road around a school or in urban areas can be made safer with specific crossing points however this road is not in an urban area nor near a school. It is not being questioned by pedestrians either…it is a small group of road users.
And yet another small group of road users are claiming not a problem.
It is a road. A safe road. A safe road where a 40mph is unwarranted.
Cycle wight are correct. Good to see the parish council agree. If you would like a quote to balance out the ludicrous horse rider statement I would be happy to oblige.
Strange that the horse rider’s statement is ludicrous but the cyclist’s concerns are correct? Weird.
The horse rider is lying. Crossed the road hundreds of times, never had an issue.
Come on. Ludicrous.
Perhaps the blinkers were on the rider not the horse.
Why ludicrous? Because it differs from your blinkered opinion?
Safety concern! Many motorists spend time following selfish cyclots. Who don’t use the adjacent cyclot track. Preferring to deliberately delay motorists. Safety will also improve if cyclots were courteous and obeyed the highway code.
Regretfully cycle tracks are not fit for purpose. Glass, overgrown, pedestrians, dogs etc etc. and when the council do try and do something to make things safer, we have clowns, much like yourself, who rant and rave so it never happens and, suprise suprise cyclists are sharing the road.
Perhaps enough of the divisive language, take a deep breath, be happy for people who are enjoying our countryside, or, heaven forbid, get on a bike yourself 😉
Get benefit claimants off their a@ses to cut back hedges
etc.
It will be good for their mental health.
Those who don’t participate STOP their benefits
We must STOP being a Namby-Pamby state.
Can you not just wait until clear like I have to inl car,or do cyclists require lollupop man/lady to help cross a road!!! Go back do your cycle proficiency test maybe. You already get too much room to play silly buggers 4 abreast halting traffic. I’m not against cycling but enough is enough. Get mountain bikes lots of trails you can use!!!
That’s exactly what they do, exactly the same as people driving cars. What do you think they were doing differently?!
But, if it can be a little safer and slower for all, that’s a win isn’t it?
Pathetic…