Anger over Wirral’s street lights blackout as cyclist crashes into unlit gate

Anger over Wirral’s street lights blackout as cyclist crashes into unlit gate

Steve and Lisa Madden at the gate.

The gate at night. Picture: Steve Madden

Lisa Madden's bruised thigh. Picture: Steve Madden

Anger over Wirral’s street lights blackout as cyclist crashes into unlit gate

First published in News
Last updated
Wirral Globe: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , Chief Reporter

WIRRAL'S street lights blackout has been blamed after a cyclist suffered injuries when she rode into gate on an unlit public cycle / footpath.

Lisa Madden was cycling along the pathway near Seacombe SpacePort – designated for bike riders and pedestrians - on her way to a fitness club on the night of Monday, January 13, when she crashed into he closed gate.

The teacher was "sent flying" and sustained injuries to her chest and thigh.

Husband Steve told the Globe he learned about the accident when he called Lisa’s mobile to find out where she was and heard her in distress.

He went to the scene and noticed nearby streetlights had been switched off as part of the council’s cost-saving strategy.

He also saw no signs indicating that a gate was there or why it was closed to pedestrians.

Wirral Globe: The gate at night. Picture: Steve Madden

Dark and dangerous. Would you notice the closed gate?

The council said it is looking into the incident and will respond to the couple.

Steve, who works for Merseycare buses, said: "I hadn’t heard from Lisa, so I gave her a call to find out if she was all right.

"When she answered, she sounded shocked.

"It's horrendous, the area's not even lit.

"I'm not even sure why the gate's there or why it was closed. It's so dangerous.

"You're riding along the unlit path and can't see the gate as it blends into the background.

"We’ve spoken to Streetscene and have yet to receive their response."

Wirral Globe: Anger over Wirral’s street lights blackout as cyclist crashes into unlit gate

The sign indicating pathway for pedestrians and cyclists.

Wallasey Conservative councillor Leah Fraser said: "The council really need to get their act together.

"Ever since they announced switching off our street lights I’ve said there could be a nasty accident and now, sadly I’ve been proved right.

"Mrs Madden could have been killed. Putting up a barrier across a cycle route without some sort of warning is irresponsible.

"To switch off lighting so you can’t see it is reckless.

"If the council are continue to reduce our street lighting they need a proper strategy in place taking into account the concerns of the police and local residents and business needs."

Lib Dem councillor Stuart Kelly, who highlighted the issue of unlit footpaths back in August 2013 said: "This is exactly the issue of risk that I raised with chief executive Graham Burgess last year.

"It is sad that an accident like this has had to happen to force the council to look at some of the safety issues involved.

"Once again I call on Cllr Harry Smith to abandon this reckless switch off policy on footpaths, cycle ways and roads."

 

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:05am Fri 17 Jan 14

Joeblogg85 says...

Who'd have thought it! Reckless people crashing into things in the dark. Very irresponsible! I can hear the spin machine from here.
Who'd have thought it! Reckless people crashing into things in the dark. Very irresponsible! I can hear the spin machine from here. Joeblogg85
  • Score: 5

11:27am Fri 17 Jan 14

polo_rob says...

Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor. polo_rob
  • Score: 27

11:38am Fri 17 Jan 14

artemis81 says...

polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate!
[quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate! artemis81
  • Score: 12

1:11pm Fri 17 Jan 14

rover600 says...

I'd suggest the cyclists concerned invest in decent lights, this story is ridiculous, to blame it on lack of street lighting absurd, how do cyclists manage in country lanes etc? Also is this actually a cycle path? for if it isn't (and I don't know) it is a road traffic offence to cycle on a public footpath,
I'd suggest the cyclists concerned invest in decent lights, this story is ridiculous, to blame it on lack of street lighting absurd, how do cyclists manage in country lanes etc? Also is this actually a cycle path? for if it isn't (and I don't know) it is a road traffic offence to cycle on a public footpath, rover600
  • Score: 8

1:47pm Fri 17 Jan 14

bigfoot says...

If it is a pathway why the 'Checkpoint Charlie' gate?
If it is a pathway why the 'Checkpoint Charlie' gate? bigfoot
  • Score: 9

1:56pm Fri 17 Jan 14

ballacrain says...

While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night.
Ballacrain
While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night. Ballacrain ballacrain
  • Score: 14

1:57pm Fri 17 Jan 14

beefman says...

What is the purpose of this barrier? It would be very hard to see a "grey" barrier in the twilight with no streetlights. Most bicycle lights are to enable people to see the cyclist, NOT to light up your path ahead. If there is a good reason for the barrier to stay, then it should be painted a bright colour, not matt grey and it should have reflective Scotchlite patches on it so that even low powered conventional bicycle lights will make the barrier highly visible. I cycled to and from work along this road for 13 years and it is gloomy round there. It has recently been designated as a combined cycle and footpath so the cyclist was well within her rights to be there. It's easy to be dismissive when you have high powered lighting on your car.
What is the purpose of this barrier? It would be very hard to see a "grey" barrier in the twilight with no streetlights. Most bicycle lights are to enable people to see the cyclist, NOT to light up your path ahead. If there is a good reason for the barrier to stay, then it should be painted a bright colour, not matt grey and it should have reflective Scotchlite patches on it so that even low powered conventional bicycle lights will make the barrier highly visible. I cycled to and from work along this road for 13 years and it is gloomy round there. It has recently been designated as a combined cycle and footpath so the cyclist was well within her rights to be there. It's easy to be dismissive when you have high powered lighting on your car. beefman
  • Score: 10

2:09pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Llamedos 1 says...

Well that didn't take log, did it. The Clowncil were well warned of the dangers of switching off street lighting even on this site but as usual the don't listen to the people they are supposed to be representing. I feel a big compensation claim coming on here and as for the idiots suggesting that lighting on bike is inadequate, well if you followed their criticism you would have to carry a pair of Rolls Royce headlights
Well that didn't take log, did it. The Clowncil were well warned of the dangers of switching off street lighting even on this site but as usual the don't listen to the people they are supposed to be representing. I feel a big compensation claim coming on here and as for the idiots suggesting that lighting on bike is inadequate, well if you followed their criticism you would have to carry a pair of Rolls Royce headlights Llamedos 1
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Fri 17 Jan 14

steady cyclist says...

As a cyclist who uses the above route a grey galvanised gate is indeed hard to see in the dark, reflective patches are so cheap, and why are all the road signs on wirral produced in highly visible reflective signage, when all cars have headlights,

Seems as if one rule for motorists who also crash into road signs and one for cyclists who have the misfortyune of hitting an unmnarked gate.

There have been deaths of cyclists hitting un marked gates,in other areas,flint being a local one .
As a cyclist who uses the above route a grey galvanised gate is indeed hard to see in the dark, reflective patches are so cheap, and why are all the road signs on wirral produced in highly visible reflective signage, when all cars have headlights, Seems as if one rule for motorists who also crash into road signs and one for cyclists who have the misfortyune of hitting an unmnarked gate. There have been deaths of cyclists hitting un marked gates,in other areas,flint being a local one . steady cyclist
  • Score: 10

3:41pm Fri 17 Jan 14

David says...

rover600 wrote:
I'd suggest the cyclists concerned invest in decent lights, this story is ridiculous, to blame it on lack of street lighting absurd, how do cyclists manage in country lanes etc? Also is this actually a cycle path? for if it isn't (and I don't know) it is a road traffic offence to cycle on a public footpath,
You are quite correct, and the thought crossed my mind that this cyclist could have easily collided with a pedestrian on this unlit footpath. However, we seem to have a powerful cycling lobby on the Wirral which has resulted in many shared footpaths/cycle routes being instated, the resurfaced Wirral Way being a prime example where it is no longer safe for young children to wander along the path with their parents for fear that they will be mown down by a speeding cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: I'd suggest the cyclists concerned invest in decent lights, this story is ridiculous, to blame it on lack of street lighting absurd, how do cyclists manage in country lanes etc? Also is this actually a cycle path? for if it isn't (and I don't know) it is a road traffic offence to cycle on a public footpath,[/p][/quote]You are quite correct, and the thought crossed my mind that this cyclist could have easily collided with a pedestrian on this unlit footpath. However, we seem to have a powerful cycling lobby on the Wirral which has resulted in many shared footpaths/cycle routes being instated, the resurfaced Wirral Way being a prime example where it is no longer safe for young children to wander along the path with their parents for fear that they will be mown down by a speeding cyclist. David
  • Score: -3

4:08pm Fri 17 Jan 14

beefman says...

Never mind the street lighting, WHAT IS THE BARRIER FOR?? If an unmarked, grey, non-reflective barrier was placed across a road, then sooner or later a car would hit it. The closest comparison I can think of for a car would be a level crossing barrier. Would that be grey in colour, non-reflective, unlit?? I don't think so. The council have made an error here, that is all. The barrier needs to go regardless of any ongoing reduction in street lighting scheme. Now, apart from that, and regarding the street lighting, couldn't the council have the street lighting on until say 11.30pm, so that the cost saving "switch off" would only be in operation when the streets and pavements were much quieter? I like the way non-cyclists are making derogatory remarks about the cyclist and her lights. Until you have been out there yourself, cycling in unlit areas, I don't think you should be so judgemental. A little forethought from the council would have prevented this incident and story, for just the cost of a pot of yellow paint and some Scotchlite stickers. By the way, I am a motorist and motorcyclist for 99.99% of my road use these days, so I CAN see this discussion from a "non-cyclist" viewpoint.
Never mind the street lighting, WHAT IS THE BARRIER FOR?? If an unmarked, grey, non-reflective barrier was placed across a road, then sooner or later a car would hit it. The closest comparison I can think of for a car would be a level crossing barrier. Would that be grey in colour, non-reflective, unlit?? I don't think so. The council have made an error here, that is all. The barrier needs to go regardless of any ongoing reduction in street lighting scheme. Now, apart from that, and regarding the street lighting, couldn't the council have the street lighting on until say 11.30pm, so that the cost saving "switch off" would only be in operation when the streets and pavements were much quieter? I like the way non-cyclists are making derogatory remarks about the cyclist and her lights. Until you have been out there yourself, cycling in unlit areas, I don't think you should be so judgemental. A little forethought from the council would have prevented this incident and story, for just the cost of a pot of yellow paint and some Scotchlite stickers. By the way, I am a motorist and motorcyclist for 99.99% of my road use these days, so I CAN see this discussion from a "non-cyclist" viewpoint. beefman
  • Score: 15

4:17pm Fri 17 Jan 14

JohnON says...

Where's a trick-cyclist when you need one :-)

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=bzE-IMaeg
zQ
Where's a trick-cyclist when you need one :-) http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=bzE-IMaeg zQ JohnON
  • Score: -4

6:43pm Fri 17 Jan 14

steady cyclist says...

Sadly a lady was hurt,by the negligence of council contractors failing to highlight the gate with cheap to apply reflective tape,perhaps the same contractors will now fit unmarked gates to all traffic light controlled juncions to stop motorists illegally driving through red lights.
Sadly a lady was hurt,by the negligence of council contractors failing to highlight the gate with cheap to apply reflective tape,perhaps the same contractors will now fit unmarked gates to all traffic light controlled juncions to stop motorists illegally driving through red lights. steady cyclist
  • Score: -2

6:57pm Fri 17 Jan 14

JTBERRY says...

If somewhere is so dark, that you can't see? why would you consider cycling along it in the first place? Completely agree that the turning off of lamp posts is a bad idea though and hope the cyclist is ok! An accident waiting to happen no doubt! Find it a bit ironic that 2 councillors who represent the coalition government have chose to criticise the decision to turn off the lamp posts?!?!? It is the conservative party, who Fraser, and the Lib Dems, who Kelly, represent, after all, that are forcing all the savage cut backs to the wirral?? All very well criticising Harry Smith but i'm pretty sure if it wasn't forced upon Labour, by the Conservatives, then the lamp posts lights would still be on??? thats like asking some one to wipe your bum because its a bit messy and you don't want to get your hands dirty and then criticising the way in which they wipe it for you!! Perhaps if the 2 councillors criticising really cared about the borough of Wirral so much they would consider lobbying central government about the brutal cut back their parties have instigated?? that would be a start...
If somewhere is so dark, that you can't see? why would you consider cycling along it in the first place? Completely agree that the turning off of lamp posts is a bad idea though and hope the cyclist is ok! An accident waiting to happen no doubt! Find it a bit ironic that 2 councillors who represent the coalition government have chose to criticise the decision to turn off the lamp posts?!?!? It is the conservative party, who Fraser, and the Lib Dems, who Kelly, represent, after all, that are forcing all the savage cut backs to the wirral?? All very well criticising Harry Smith but i'm pretty sure if it wasn't forced upon Labour, by the Conservatives, then the lamp posts lights would still be on??? thats like asking some one to wipe your bum because its a bit messy and you don't want to get your hands dirty and then criticising the way in which they wipe it for you!! Perhaps if the 2 councillors criticising really cared about the borough of Wirral so much they would consider lobbying central government about the brutal cut back their parties have instigated?? that would be a start... JTBERRY
  • Score: 0

9:38am Sat 18 Jan 14

kemirakid says...

Why don't the council just pull the fuses on every other street light, so still lighting the roads and still saving money. A cheap and easy solution to the problem. Why has none of the very well paid council employees thought??
Why don't the council just pull the fuses on every other street light, so still lighting the roads and still saving money. A cheap and easy solution to the problem. Why has none of the very well paid council employees thought?? kemirakid
  • Score: 9

9:42am Sat 18 Jan 14

kemirakid says...

Why cant they just pull the fuses on every other street light thereby saving some money but still illuminating the roads ? Quick cheap solution to the problem. Less chance of any accidents or mishaps
Why cant they just pull the fuses on every other street light thereby saving some money but still illuminating the roads ? Quick cheap solution to the problem. Less chance of any accidents or mishaps kemirakid
  • Score: 10

10:45am Sat 18 Jan 14

Joeblogg85 says...

kemirakid wrote:
Why cant they just pull the fuses on every other street light thereby saving some money but still illuminating the roads ? Quick cheap solution to the problem. Less chance of any accidents or mishaps
You mean those Super dooper strategic directors getting wadges of money to think of better ways to run the council? Just think you could keep a school open for the salary of just one of these jokers.
[quote][p][bold]kemirakid[/bold] wrote: Why cant they just pull the fuses on every other street light thereby saving some money but still illuminating the roads ? Quick cheap solution to the problem. Less chance of any accidents or mishaps[/p][/quote]You mean those Super dooper strategic directors getting wadges of money to think of better ways to run the council? Just think you could keep a school open for the salary of just one of these jokers. Joeblogg85
  • Score: 4

12:55pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Westerly9 says...

Saying the cyclist should have decent lights is ill informed.

Cycle lights are for visibility, they are not like car headlights, if they were bright enough to illuminate a dark road (like a car on full beam) it would blind pedestrians and other road users and would become just another stick to beat cyclists with.

A simple hi viz sticker or turning the street lights on at night (crazy idea i know) would have solved this. Blame is 100% with the council and the Tory government for imposing these massive funding cuts.
Saying the cyclist should have decent lights is ill informed. Cycle lights are for visibility, they are not like car headlights, if they were bright enough to illuminate a dark road (like a car on full beam) it would blind pedestrians and other road users and would become just another stick to beat cyclists with. A simple hi viz sticker or turning the street lights on at night (crazy idea i know) would have solved this. Blame is 100% with the council and the Tory government for imposing these massive funding cuts. Westerly9
  • Score: 5

9:52pm Sat 18 Jan 14

laser_jock99 says...

GET SOME LIGHTS ON YOUR BIKE- it's not rocket science! Seriously- some people will not be happy until all natural darkness is turned into artifical daylight.
GET SOME LIGHTS ON YOUR BIKE- it's not rocket science! Seriously- some people will not be happy until all natural darkness is turned into artifical daylight. laser_jock99
  • Score: -1

11:56pm Sat 18 Jan 14

dadorail says...

Google Earth shows that this gate has been there for quite some time.
https://www.google.c
o.uk/maps/preview#!d
ata=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-
3.018059!3d53.408673
!2m2!1f180!2f90!4f75
!2m9!1e1!2m4!1sFA14t
KT8yFCkHRh2UpnPBA!2e
0!9m1!6sA554!5m2!1sF
A14tKT8yFCkHRh2UpnPB
A!2e0&f

In a closed position
Google Earth shows that this gate has been there for quite some time. https://www.google.c o.uk/maps/preview#!d ata=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d- 3.018059!3d53.408673 !2m2!1f180!2f90!4f75 !2m9!1e1!2m4!1sFA14t KT8yFCkHRh2UpnPBA!2e 0!9m1!6sA554!5m2!1sF A14tKT8yFCkHRh2UpnPB A!2e0&f In a closed position dadorail
  • Score: 2

1:22am Sun 19 Jan 14

Slasher13 says...

polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
You need to get down there on a bike you clown to see how dark it is , yours angrily mr madden ( the cyclists husband )
[quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]You need to get down there on a bike you clown to see how dark it is , yours angrily mr madden ( the cyclists husband ) Slasher13
  • Score: -4

1:24am Sun 19 Jan 14

Slasher13 says...

bigfoot wrote:
If it is a pathway why the 'Checkpoint Charlie' gate?
Exactly ..well said
[quote][p][bold]bigfoot[/bold] wrote: If it is a pathway why the 'Checkpoint Charlie' gate?[/p][/quote]Exactly ..well said Slasher13
  • Score: 2

1:33am Sun 19 Jan 14

Slasher13 says...

artemis81 wrote:
polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate!
Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****
[quote][p][bold]artemis81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate![/p][/quote]Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** **** Slasher13
  • Score: -12

9:25am Sun 19 Jan 14

Joeblogg85 says...

Let's get back on track here. The woman in question could have been very seriously hurt. It was obvious that at some point something like this was going to happen. Let's thank God it wasn't more serious.
Let's get back on track here. The woman in question could have been very seriously hurt. It was obvious that at some point something like this was going to happen. Let's thank God it wasn't more serious. Joeblogg85
  • Score: 5

1:52pm Sun 19 Jan 14

hobroW says...

I used to cycle this route near daily to get to work in rock ferry. even on summer evenings it was not easy to see if gate open or closed. I knew it was there so I slowed down approaching it via the covered way and only noticed yards from it. On a cold winters day it is perfectly understandable for a cyclist's guard to be down, thinking more of the cold or the wet, such that without reflective markers or warning in reflective material well in advance on footpath before the gate, no reasonable person could be blamed for crashing into the self-same gate
I used to cycle this route near daily to get to work in rock ferry. even on summer evenings it was not easy to see if gate open or closed. I knew it was there so I slowed down approaching it via the covered way and only noticed yards from it. On a cold winters day it is perfectly understandable for a cyclist's guard to be down, thinking more of the cold or the wet, such that without reflective markers or warning in reflective material well in advance on footpath before the gate, no reasonable person could be blamed for crashing into the self-same gate hobroW
  • Score: 3

4:20pm Sun 19 Jan 14

polo_rob says...

Slasher13 wrote:
artemis81 wrote:
polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate!
Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****
So 'slasher13' you go running to the papers in the hope to re-enforce your opinion that someone other than your wife is in some way responsible. You put this story in the public domain, in a paper with a public forum, and as such you have encouraged healthy debate, which is exactly what this story has done. Then when you don't like some people view points you resort to insulting people you don't even know?! Very well I shall go down on my bike tonight just to entertain you and then I shall restate my opinion.
Furthermore maybe I shall contact your employer as by bringing attention to them by stating their name in the story (which by the way was totally irrelevant) and then by insulting innocent unknown members of the public who could even possibly be service users you are breaching your contract of employment with them,maybe you should have thought before insulting strangers eh?
[quote][p][bold]Slasher13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]artemis81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate![/p][/quote]Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****[/p][/quote]So 'slasher13' you go running to the papers in the hope to re-enforce your opinion that someone other than your wife is in some way responsible. You put this story in the public domain, in a paper with a public forum, and as such you have encouraged healthy debate, which is exactly what this story has done. Then when you don't like some people view points you resort to insulting people you don't even know?! Very well I shall go down on my bike tonight just to entertain you and then I shall restate my opinion. Furthermore maybe I shall contact your employer as by bringing attention to them by stating their name in the story (which by the way was totally irrelevant) and then by insulting innocent unknown members of the public who could even possibly be service users you are breaching your contract of employment with them,maybe you should have thought before insulting strangers eh? polo_rob
  • Score: 8

4:22pm Sun 19 Jan 14

uncatom says...

Surely if it was that dark and the lady was unfamiliar with the route, it might of been wise to proceed with extra caution and at a reduced speed to keep within range of her lights, there could have been any number of hazards unseen in the dark, or even a pedestrian in dark clothing, apparently the gate has been there for some considerable time without any problems arising, still I hope she is feeling better.
Surely if it was that dark and the lady was unfamiliar with the route, it might of been wise to proceed with extra caution and at a reduced speed to keep within range of her lights, there could have been any number of hazards unseen in the dark, or even a pedestrian in dark clothing, apparently the gate has been there for some considerable time without any problems arising, still I hope she is feeling better. uncatom
  • Score: 4

6:37pm Sun 19 Jan 14

uncatom says...

polo_rob wrote:
Slasher13 wrote:
artemis81 wrote:
polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate!
Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****
So 'slasher13' you go running to the papers in the hope to re-enforce your opinion that someone other than your wife is in some way responsible. You put this story in the public domain, in a paper with a public forum, and as such you have encouraged healthy debate, which is exactly what this story has done. Then when you don't like some people view points you resort to insulting people you don't even know?! Very well I shall go down on my bike tonight just to entertain you and then I shall restate my opinion.
Furthermore maybe I shall contact your employer as by bringing attention to them by stating their name in the story (which by the way was totally irrelevant) and then by insulting innocent unknown members of the public who could even possibly be service users you are breaching your contract of employment with them,maybe you should have thought before insulting strangers eh?
I have just re read the article, and yes it does indeed mention his employer, a company that transports special needs persons, so referring to somebody as a r----d (a derogative term used by some to describe those unfortunate enough to be physically or mentally disabled) is an absolute disgrace, and I have asked that his comment be withdrawn.
[quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Slasher13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]artemis81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate![/p][/quote]Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****[/p][/quote]So 'slasher13' you go running to the papers in the hope to re-enforce your opinion that someone other than your wife is in some way responsible. You put this story in the public domain, in a paper with a public forum, and as such you have encouraged healthy debate, which is exactly what this story has done. Then when you don't like some people view points you resort to insulting people you don't even know?! Very well I shall go down on my bike tonight just to entertain you and then I shall restate my opinion. Furthermore maybe I shall contact your employer as by bringing attention to them by stating their name in the story (which by the way was totally irrelevant) and then by insulting innocent unknown members of the public who could even possibly be service users you are breaching your contract of employment with them,maybe you should have thought before insulting strangers eh?[/p][/quote]I have just re read the article, and yes it does indeed mention his employer, a company that transports special needs persons, so referring to somebody as a r----d (a derogative term used by some to describe those unfortunate enough to be physically or mentally disabled) is an absolute disgrace, and I have asked that his comment be withdrawn. uncatom
  • Score: 9

9:49pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Positive thinker says...

What a pair of bell ends,they should feel highly embarrassed
What a pair of bell ends,they should feel highly embarrassed Positive thinker
  • Score: 4

10:34pm Sun 19 Jan 14

Positive thinker says...

Did the barrier get damaged?
Did the barrier get damaged? Positive thinker
  • Score: 1

11:15pm Sun 19 Jan 14

JTBERRY says...

The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway. JTBERRY
  • Score: 6

8:15am Mon 20 Jan 14

JohnON says...

JTBERRY wrote:
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians.

Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.
[quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.[/p][/quote]The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians. Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track. JohnON
  • Score: 8

9:19am Mon 20 Jan 14

JohnON says...

"He also saw no signs indicating that a gate was there or why it was closed to pedestrians."

In the photos above, I can see a tactile strip across the pathway which, judging from its position, can serve no other purpose than as a signal to slow down, hazard(s) ahead.

As there is a gap to the side of the gate, I would suggest that the pathway in not 'closed to pedestrians' but is very likely there to close off a potential 'joy riders' escape route or fly-tipping entrance.
"He also saw no signs indicating that a gate was there or why it was closed to pedestrians." In the photos above, I can see a tactile strip across the pathway which, judging from its position, can serve no other purpose than as a signal to slow down, hazard(s) ahead. As there is a gap to the side of the gate, I would suggest that the pathway in not 'closed to pedestrians' but is very likely there to close off a potential 'joy riders' escape route or fly-tipping entrance. JohnON
  • Score: 6

9:58am Mon 20 Jan 14

artemis81 says...

Slasher13 wrote:
artemis81 wrote:
polo_rob wrote:
Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.
When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate!
Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****
I always think before I comment. Indeed, since the story was published I've had a good look at the where the accident took place as I pass there quite often. I'm really sorry your wife was hurt - genuinely - but you're being extremely disingenuous trying to blame the streetlights here as the path is actually relatively well lit by the lights on Birkenhead Road and the lights at Seacombe Ferry car park. I accept it's still dimly lit, but that's night-time for you. I notice the Globe have helpfully taken a photo there at night... notwithstanding a photo does not give a completely accurate reflection and can be manipulated, it asks 'would you notice the closed gate?'. And the answer is 'yes', I think I would. As I say, I'm really sorry for your wife's injury, but please see it for what it is.
[quote][p][bold]Slasher13[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]artemis81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polo_rob[/bold] wrote: Surely a responsible cyclist though would have lights fitted to their bike, in use, and be looking where they're going?! And yes I can see from the photo accompanying the story they have, but why in today's blame claim society do people always point to loopholes such as 'no signs warning of its presence' years ago before health and safety went nuts there weren't signs everywhere warning people of every little thing, common sense and personal responsibility was perfectly adequate, so wether the path is lit or not is only a minor contributing factor.[/p][/quote]When I drove past there last night on my way home from New Brighton, the car park was well lit up so it'd hardly be pitch black anyway. And I love the idea that the cyclist would be more likely to see a sign than the whopping big grey gate![/p][/quote]Excuse me !!! Husband of the lady in the accident ,we both have lights and this path has only just opened ,because our normal route has had every **** lamp light enroute to seacombe switched off . Think before you comment your pair of **** ****[/p][/quote]I always think before I comment. Indeed, since the story was published I've had a good look at the where the accident took place as I pass there quite often. I'm really sorry your wife was hurt - genuinely - but you're being extremely disingenuous trying to blame the streetlights here as the path is actually relatively well lit by the lights on Birkenhead Road and the lights at Seacombe Ferry car park. I accept it's still dimly lit, but that's night-time for you. I notice the Globe have helpfully taken a photo there at night... notwithstanding a photo does not give a completely accurate reflection and can be manipulated, it asks 'would you notice the closed gate?'. And the answer is 'yes', I think I would. As I say, I'm really sorry for your wife's injury, but please see it for what it is. artemis81
  • Score: 5

11:19am Mon 20 Jan 14

Westerly9 says...

JohnON wrote:
JTBERRY wrote:
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians.

Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.
Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point.

The coastal paths are not your private trail either.
[quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.[/p][/quote]The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians. Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point. The coastal paths are not your private trail either. Westerly9
  • Score: -6

12:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

JTBERRY says...

Westerly9 wrote:
JohnON wrote:
JTBERRY wrote:
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians.

Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.
Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point.

The coastal paths are not your private trail either.
Fair Point Westerly 9 - i agree. Although its completely irrelevant to the subject in this thread/story, really, isn't it? I mean what has dog fouling, people refusing to move in bike lanes, ownership of paths etc etc got to do with somebody being injured after hitting a gate, as per this article and thread??? No harm having a good old general rant though i suppose ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Westerly9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.[/p][/quote]The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians. Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point. The coastal paths are not your private trail either.[/p][/quote]Fair Point Westerly 9 - i agree. Although its completely irrelevant to the subject in this thread/story, really, isn't it? I mean what has dog fouling, people refusing to move in bike lanes, ownership of paths etc etc got to do with somebody being injured after hitting a gate, as per this article and thread??? No harm having a good old general rant though i suppose ;-) JTBERRY
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Mon 20 Jan 14

JohnON says...

"The coastal paths are not your private trail either."

You're absolutely right. But the fact remains that the Wirral Cycle Paths map issued by Wirral Council clearly states that cyclist should WALK along the embankment footpath.

The majority of cyclists are considerate and warn when they're approaching from behind. It's the inconsiderate few who, as always, spoil it for the rest.

It would be a shame if the Council was, one day, forced to uphold one of its own bye-laws.
"The coastal paths are not your private trail either." You're absolutely right. But the fact remains that the Wirral Cycle Paths map issued by Wirral Council clearly states that cyclist should WALK along the embankment footpath. The majority of cyclists are considerate and warn when they're approaching from behind. It's the inconsiderate few who, as always, spoil it for the rest. It would be a shame if the Council was, one day, forced to uphold one of its own bye-laws. JohnON
  • Score: 1

12:39pm Mon 20 Jan 14

PaulCa says...

ballacrain wrote:
While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night.
Ballacrain
They're probably lit because the photocell on top of the lantern has packed in. So it's by no means intentional.

What's needed now is a daytime scouting round to record the positions of 100s of day burners throughout the borough.

According to quoted costs in the COLAS contract awarded and endorsed by ex employee David Green, maintenance was extremely cheap, so it should only cost a few quid.

Oh, I forgot, scouting rounds have been stopped haven't they, due to cost concerns?
[quote][p][bold]ballacrain[/bold] wrote: While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night. Ballacrain[/p][/quote]They're probably lit because the photocell on top of the lantern has packed in. So it's by no means intentional. What's needed now is a daytime scouting round to record the positions of 100s of day burners throughout the borough. According to quoted costs in the COLAS contract awarded and endorsed by ex employee David Green, maintenance was extremely cheap, so it should only cost a few quid. Oh, I forgot, scouting rounds have been stopped haven't they, due to cost concerns? PaulCa
  • Score: 8

3:21pm Mon 20 Jan 14

JohnON says...

PaulCa wrote:
ballacrain wrote:
While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night.
Ballacrain
They're probably lit because the photocell on top of the lantern has packed in. So it's by no means intentional.

What's needed now is a daytime scouting round to record the positions of 100s of day burners throughout the borough.

According to quoted costs in the COLAS contract awarded and endorsed by ex employee David Green, maintenance was extremely cheap, so it should only cost a few quid.

Oh, I forgot, scouting rounds have been stopped haven't they, due to cost concerns?
There's a council down south somewhere which has a free app for smartphones on which people can tap a map to automatically report a fly-tipping spot. Maybe it would be cost effective for Wirral Council to commission a similar app for reporting errant street lights. (The "base station" app presumably filters out duplicate reports).
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ballacrain[/bold] wrote: While strolling home along the prom from New Brighton today 17/01/2014, I noticed two lights were lit. Why are these lights lit during the day.Council can afford to leave them on during the day but turn them off where needed at night. Ballacrain[/p][/quote]They're probably lit because the photocell on top of the lantern has packed in. So it's by no means intentional. What's needed now is a daytime scouting round to record the positions of 100s of day burners throughout the borough. According to quoted costs in the COLAS contract awarded and endorsed by ex employee David Green, maintenance was extremely cheap, so it should only cost a few quid. Oh, I forgot, scouting rounds have been stopped haven't they, due to cost concerns?[/p][/quote]There's a council down south somewhere which has a free app for smartphones on which people can tap a map to automatically report a fly-tipping spot. Maybe it would be cost effective for Wirral Council to commission a similar app for reporting errant street lights. (The "base station" app presumably filters out duplicate reports). JohnON
  • Score: 3

4:40pm Mon 20 Jan 14

sjf1952 says...

Joeblogg85 wrote:
Who'd have thought it! Reckless people crashing into things in the dark. Very irresponsible! I can hear the spin machine from here.
The lights off in that area was a price worth paying when you consider those wonderful extra Christmas lights being shown in Heswall.!
[quote][p][bold]Joeblogg85[/bold] wrote: Who'd have thought it! Reckless people crashing into things in the dark. Very irresponsible! I can hear the spin machine from here.[/p][/quote]The lights off in that area was a price worth paying when you consider those wonderful extra Christmas lights being shown in Heswall.! sjf1952
  • Score: -2

7:36pm Mon 20 Jan 14

uncatom says...

Westerly9 wrote:
JohnON wrote:
JTBERRY wrote:
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians.

Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.
Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point.

The coastal paths are not your private trail either.
Sorry to hear more tales of the downtrodden cyclist, but you cant cry wolf then ride on pavements throughout the borough, to which I might add are not your private trail, I've got no problems with children riding on same, but adults its a no no, this cyclist v motorists and pedestrians always manifests itself whenever a problem is highlighted, with the cyclist blaming everyone and everything for their misfortunes.
[quote][p][bold]Westerly9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.[/p][/quote]The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians. Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point. The coastal paths are not your private trail either.[/p][/quote]Sorry to hear more tales of the downtrodden cyclist, but you cant cry wolf then ride on pavements throughout the borough, to which I might add are not your private trail, I've got no problems with children riding on same, but adults its a no no, this cyclist v motorists and pedestrians always manifests itself whenever a problem is highlighted, with the cyclist blaming everyone and everything for their misfortunes. uncatom
  • Score: 1

8:49am Tue 21 Jan 14

Phil_jacques@hotmail.com says...

Seriously, I've crashed into things during the day, just because its dark doesn't remove my responsibility.

I haven't come across any runners who've ran into this gate - and they don't have lights on.

Looks like an open and shut case....
Seriously, I've crashed into things during the day, just because its dark doesn't remove my responsibility. I haven't come across any runners who've ran into this gate - and they don't have lights on. Looks like an open and shut case.... Phil_jacques@hotmail.com
  • Score: 7

9:11am Tue 21 Jan 14

Positive thinker says...

Looks like not many people are on side with the barmpott cyclist
who dosnt look were she's riding
Looks like not many people are on side with the barmpott cyclist who dosnt look were she's riding Positive thinker
  • Score: 11

9:51am Tue 21 Jan 14

littleme77 says...

Wow some people are rude. This lady got hurt and wants the gate to be made more visible for safety reasons. It must have really shook her up.
Wow some people are rude. This lady got hurt and wants the gate to be made more visible for safety reasons. It must have really shook her up. littleme77
  • Score: -6

10:23am Tue 21 Jan 14

JohnON says...

Last year, I was walking along the Leasowe to Meols embankment footpath when I saw an *authorized* vehicle coming towards me. It was only going walking pace but it had its headlights on and its flashing lights (Coastguard vehicle, I think).

Because it's difficult for me to walk on the sloping part of the embankment, I look hard at the driver until I know they know I've seen them and then, with about 20 metres to spare, I step to the side.

As I stepped aside, I was surprised to be overtaken by an unauthorised vehicle in the form of a bicycle who had to literally ram on his brakes and skid sideways into the front of this now-stationary coastguard vehicle.

The biggest problem with cyclists is they tend to be fixated on the road about 2 feet ahead of their front wheel.

While I sympathise with this lady - it must have hurt - I cannot sympathise with the song and dance they (or possible her husband) have tried to create from it.

As the old saying goes: "Sh*t happens. Get on with it"
Last year, I was walking along the Leasowe to Meols embankment footpath when I saw an *authorized* vehicle coming towards me. It was only going walking pace but it had its headlights on and its flashing lights (Coastguard vehicle, I think). Because it's difficult for me to walk on the sloping part of the embankment, I look hard at the driver until I know they know I've seen them and then, with about 20 metres to spare, I step to the side. As I stepped aside, I was surprised to be overtaken by an unauthorised vehicle in the form of a bicycle who had to literally ram on his brakes and skid sideways into the front of this now-stationary coastguard vehicle. The biggest problem with cyclists is they tend to be fixated on the road about 2 feet ahead of their front wheel. While I sympathise with this lady - it must have hurt - I cannot sympathise with the song and dance they (or possible her husband) have tried to create from it. As the old saying goes: "Sh*t happens. Get on with it" JohnON
  • Score: 4

11:18am Tue 21 Jan 14

uncatom says...

Moral of the story is, watch where you are going, reduce you speed to match the prevailing road and weather conditions and be able to stop yourself safely in good time, if there is very poor visibility then dismount and walk.
Moral of the story is, watch where you are going, reduce you speed to match the prevailing road and weather conditions and be able to stop yourself safely in good time, if there is very poor visibility then dismount and walk. uncatom
  • Score: 5

8:09am Wed 22 Jan 14

Westerly9 says...

JTBERRY wrote:
Westerly9 wrote:
JohnON wrote:
JTBERRY wrote:
The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.
The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians.

Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.
Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point.

The coastal paths are not your private trail either.
Fair Point Westerly 9 - i agree. Although its completely irrelevant to the subject in this thread/story, really, isn't it? I mean what has dog fouling, people refusing to move in bike lanes, ownership of paths etc etc got to do with somebody being injured after hitting a gate, as per this article and thread??? No harm having a good old general rant though i suppose ;-)
I refer you to the post I quoted.

It will all make sense my friend.
[quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Westerly9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JohnON[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JTBERRY[/bold] wrote: The Highway Code actually advises that lights be used by cyclists so you can be seen by others and that if you are riding down an unlit road you should ALSO be using a steady front lamp. So i assume the lamp is so you can see? Not just be seen, as per a light. That's my interpretation anyway.[/p][/quote]The Highway Code advises lots of things for cyclists; such as they should slow down and be prepared to stop when cycling on pathways shared with pedestrians. Wirral Council goes even further and - looking at the map of Wirral Cycle Paths, which shows the coastal embankment - says that cyclists should walk. Not tear-ar*e along like it was their private race track.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians also have responsibilities. Like not letting their dogs foul all over the pathways and beaches, walking 4 abreast and refusing to move or hscowling when they hear a cyclists bell, walking in the middle of bike lanes, using the knowledge that cyclist should give way to the nth degree to prove a point. The coastal paths are not your private trail either.[/p][/quote]Fair Point Westerly 9 - i agree. Although its completely irrelevant to the subject in this thread/story, really, isn't it? I mean what has dog fouling, people refusing to move in bike lanes, ownership of paths etc etc got to do with somebody being injured after hitting a gate, as per this article and thread??? No harm having a good old general rant though i suppose ;-)[/p][/quote]I refer you to the post I quoted. It will all make sense my friend. Westerly9
  • Score: -5

7:15pm Wed 22 Jan 14

spamfiend says...

Just looking at the photo or Mr & Mrs Knievel and can't see any lights on the bikes for their publicity photo. I know lights can be removed, but just as an ask, what type of light did you have on the bike because if it was one of those silly flashing ones that I see all too often, I have to tell you they are useless.

When I where a lad and rode a bike up and down t' road, I used an old fashioned dynamo set bought from the local bike emporium and they did me till they bike got robbed (spent my pennies on lights, but not a decent padlock lol)
Just looking at the photo or Mr & Mrs Knievel and can't see any lights on the bikes for their publicity photo. I know lights can be removed, but just as an ask, what type of light did you have on the bike because if it was one of those silly flashing ones that I see all too often, I have to tell you they are useless. When I where a lad and rode a bike up and down t' road, I used an old fashioned dynamo set bought from the local bike emporium and they did me till they bike got robbed (spent my pennies on lights, but not a decent padlock lol) spamfiend
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Jack Boot says...

Hi Slasher13, I suggest you contact Ivanvova, Dante's Russian cook, and fit a bazooka on your wife's handlebars, liberated from Berlin '45, that'll sort out any obstacles in future.
Hi Slasher13, I suggest you contact Ivanvova, Dante's Russian cook, and fit a bazooka on your wife's handlebars, liberated from Berlin '45, that'll sort out any obstacles in future. Jack Boot
  • Score: 3

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