CycleWight, the advocacy group for cycling on the Isle of Wight, is calling for the Isle of Wight Council to show greater ambition and a long-term commitment to improving cycling cycle infrastructure on the Island.
The recent reversal of the Emergency Active Travel Fund measures has highlighted the need for proper consultation and long term planning approach to cycle infrastructure design and build, says the group. The Council, with government funding, proposed a number of small local schemes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, only for them to be cancelled a few days later.
A spokesperson for CycleWight has said:
“Some of the schemes proposed by the local authority were so far removed from the schemes desired by cyclists as to be meaningless. Very short, isolated sections of cycle lane that fail to form part of a coherent cycling network do not serve the needs of cyclists and where there is no clear rationale for such measures in cycling terms, it is hard to put a positive case for such measures to residents and local businesses.
“The Beckford Road scheme in Cowes is a case in point. CycleWight has long campaigned for a contra-flow cycle lane along Birmingham Road as part of a vision to create a joined up route between the Red Jet and the start of the cycle path on Arctic Road and onward to Newport”.
This scheme, advocated by CycleWight, was one of their many proposals to Isle of Wight Council. It was, however, replaced by the ‘misguided’ Beckford Road project – a scheme that made no sense to CycleWight, who were not consulted on it and did not support it.
The spokesperson continues:
“The fact remains that a safe and convenient route between the Red Jet, Cowes town centre and the cycle path at Arctic Road is essential if we are to make the most of the cycling link to Newport and to encourage more people to take to their bikes – something that is universally recognised as good for people’s health, the environment and the public purse.
Article continues below this advertisement “We support the introduction of new, high quality cycling infrastructure that makes a genuine difference to the quality of the cycling experience and other measures, such as 20mph urban speed limits, that give people who want to cycle a safe environment in which to do so. To achieve these goals, the Isle of Wight Council needs to adopt a long-term strategy for cycling and show the commitment and leadership to see plans realised.
“CycleWight urges the Isle of Wight Council to address this need in a coherent way and to show long term commitment to finding a solution”.
Some of the Emergency Active Travel schemes were supported by CylceWight and the group says it is disappointed that they are not going to be progressed using the current funding. The scheme to limit traffic along Little London would have had major benefits for people cycling and walking on what is an important recreational and commuter route, it’s said.
Start paying to use the road and observing the traffic lights, then voice your opinions cyclists – otherwise shut up
Income tax, council tax funds the roads, I pay both.
They pay council tax and VAT, which is what funds road maintenance. Only thing they don’t pay is a tax on emissions.
As a vehicle owner for work, and a keen mountain biker for leisure, pay £260 a year road tax Chris. How much do you pay?
Cyclist pay nothing to use the roads, start paying, then you can start saying what you want
Income tax, council tax fund the roads, I pay both.
They pay council tax and VAT, which is what funds road maintenance. Only thing they don’t pay is a tax on emissions.
Cycling should be banned until the covid crisis is over! An infected cyclist breathing heavily can leave a trail of potentially live virus for up to 25 yards behind him. far from being green, at the moment they are potential supra-spreaders.
Why are cyclists aloud to Ryde side by side holding all traffic up ??
*allowed.
*ride!
Highway code says they are not, should ride single file on a b roads
Highway code says ride no more than two abreast. Two abreast is completely legal (though it’s considerate not to in high traffic areas).
But too many do not, and no action is taken against them.
A contra cycle lane in Birmingham Road would only increase the number of cyclists ignoring the no entry signs at the top of Shooters Hill and flying down through the pedestrian precinct, which is not safe and healthy for others. The town council put up signs reminding cyclists to dismount but Island toads removed the signs stating the no entry signs were sufficient.!
Cyclists should not be demanding more rights on the road until they are told to pay to use it. Lyrca louts are everywhere it seems, shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way, riding wrong way down the roads and on pavements.
Income tax, council tax pay for the roads, I pay both.
So do owners of all motor vehicles. They then have to pay Vehicle Excise Duty to be able to use said vehicle on the road. Cycle owners do not.
Vehicle excise duty is to cover emissions, and the cost is based on emissions. Bicycles do not give off emissions, so no need.
They pay council tax and VAT, which is what funds road maintenance. Only thing they don’t pay is a tax on emissions.
Use the cycle paths you have not the road like fairlee road.
Are you drunk or illiterate, or both?
Reading your responses do you take this kind of arrogance and obnoxious attitude out when you ride your bicycle that’s if you do. Ever considered maybe just maybe the attitudes of certain groups of cyclists especially the so called “lycra lout roadie” community need to change. maybe they should be charged an emissions charge on the constant foul language and abuse that spews from thier mouths or fined on the constant Spitting they do(especially with covid around) . remember that respect is earned and not an entitlement because you decide to ride a bicycle, most motorists respect cyclists so why not the other way round. It’s simple ride a bicycle on the road then follow the laws of the road like stopping at red lights and calm down no one’s racing wiggins on le tour de France. its that simple, then we all can get along alot better and safer
Cyclists pay the same as car users for the upkeep of roads (sans emissions tax, but that’s because they don’t generate emissions). Road tax hasn’t existed since 1937. Road upkeep is paid for through council tax and VAT, something that everyone pays, even people who don’t use roads at all. Stop spouting incorrect information without reading up on it.
Vehicle excise duty is just another name for road tax it was rebranded to include emissions to be in favour with the greens
Except the money from VED just goes into the general governmental funding pool, rather than being used to repair roads, which makes council tax and income tax as much a “Road tax” as VED.
Everyone uses the roads even if they’re just crossing it on foot.
Keep cyclist’s off the roads and traffic moves smoothly, they are a bane to society. When they pay road tax and get insured then they deserve to have a voice
Road tax hasn’t existed since 1937.
Vehicle Excise Duty.
Is based on emissions. Bicycles don’t give off CO2, so nothing to charge.
I will listen to this “advocacy” group when cyclists become responsible. All cycles to have a registration mark, annual safety check, and third party insurance. And perhaps they might pay £150 a year road usage tax.
Road usage tax is not a thing that cars pay (since 1937), so a bit rich to expect cyclists to pay it. All of your other suggestions are good ideas and responsible cyclists have all of them, however the main point is that all of that is required for cars as a mechanical failure or accident caused by a car is far more likely to cause injury, death or damage to someone else’s property than a bicycle.
No you wont, you’ll just come up with another non-reason to ignore them
It would probably be used by commuter, and leisure cyclists and highly doubt it would keep the groups of “lycra louts roadies” off the roads, they could make gold plated cycle tracks smooth as silk but they would rather use potholed uneven roads and cause chaos.
Heres a crazy suggestion…some of the parking along newport road could have designated bays on the upper part (green, bottom of st faiths) that clears the cars up to the zebra crossing. Slap double lines down. Better for the buses and heavy vehicles too.
Cyclist can divert that way instead of sending them via Artic road to Birmingham road…which was poorly designed for 2020 traffic.
Just send my brown envelope to the usual address…haha (joke, I wish !)
Perhaps CycleWight would like to pay for this extra infrastructure. I don’t see why I should have to pay for this through my council tax.
Who is this ‘spokesperson’? Please have the courage of your convictions and name yourself, or remain silent. Cyclists should not be obliged to contribute to the cost of road upkeep, as they do not wear it out. But due to the limited width of roads, any improvement to cycling infrastructure is automatically to the detriment of all other road users, such as the lorries and vans that the public rely on to transport goods and services, and the buses that transport large numbers of passengers. Cyclists are only concerned with themselves. Contraflow cycle lanes are dangerous for pedestrians as well as cyclists themselves and are completely ridiculous. I am a cyclist myself – I just cycle where there is some nice tarmac and I consider it safe.
Start paying road tax and insurance!!! and remember sail gives way to steam they Harper on about car and van drivers. Look at your own and read the Highway Code!
Road tax doesn’t exist, it hasn’t since 1937. Vehicle excise duty is based on emissions – electric vehicles don’t pay it either, should they be banned from the road too, or are your issues just with cyclists and nothing to do with road maintenance?