Insurance increases

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 18:34

Two points.

With my Charlbury Cycling Group (of which Igor is not a member) hat on, we are working up options to improve cycling provision within the town. The point about "taxpayers' cash" is entirely moot as Oxfordshire County Council has virtually no budget for cycling outside Oxford city anyway. Given that these proposals have not been published and no-one else is showing any sign of putting forward any others, there actually isn't anything to argue about.

With my Charlbury Website hat on:

I am extremely exasperated that some people are unable to have any sort of debate without calling each other muppets and so on. Any discussion of cycling, driving, 4x4 snowmobiles etc. for the next fortnight WILL be deleted. Perhaps this will give some of you the space to look back and see how ridiculous you look.

You are ruining the website for everyone else. I am personally annoyed that I'm sitting here in a hotel room on holiday and having to spend half an hour tapping away on a phone to shut up a bunch of squabbling children intent on forming themselves into gangs. It needs to stop, and I'm determined it will.

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 12:44

Paul, the answer to your survey is:

1. Yes (Igor, check the history books!)
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes

It looks like we are in for another year of long-winded debate about the same old subject!

By the way, Terry, I think your use of the word "pompous" is spot on!

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 12:01

QUICK POLL Answer yes or no
1 Is Charlbury a town..... Yes
2 Doe the one way system..... Yes
3 Is there any point spending £1000s on cycle lanes..... No
4 Is that a Muppet who rides his bike the wrong way up market street..... Yes
5 Are we going over the same stuff as in 2008..... Yes

This is my point I don’t have the same views as Igor who seems to take over every topic and turn it into his own debate about speeding and cycling. This started as a debate over the increases in insurance premiums and with in two posts we are back to speeding and one way streets.

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 11:22

You have missed the facts and figures bit which any impovements will have to be based on, as a tax payer and also pay road tax on 2 cars I would hate to see money spent needlessly on 1 or 2 non road tax paying bikes. Is the problem you dont wont to get of and walk in the church yard. There does not seem to many others on here to back you up.

QUICK POLL Answer yes or no
1 Is Charlbury a town?
2 Doe the one way system work?
3 Is there any point spending £1000s on cycle lanes?
4 Is that a Muppet who rides his bike the wrong way up market street?
5 Are we going over the same stuff as in 2008?

Happy New Year

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 08:18

Paul's points:
1.Charlbury is a village, Witney and Chippy are towns. You can put lipstick on a pig . . .
2. There's allot more than 1 or 2 cyclists in Charlbury and if the roads were cycle friendly with cycle lanes and contraflow, there would be even more.
3. 'Charlbury is no less cycle/pedestrian than the next place' oh well, then that's alright then, if we're no better than the next place, why try and improve anything? There's just as many knife crimes in Manchester as London, so why bother doing anything about that either?

I mean as long as it's normal.

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 01:45

A few points here 1 Charlbury is a town,2 the road system works well as it is never will change for 1 or 2 cycles,3 if we all walked there would be less accidents, how many accidents have there been in charlbury in the last 3 years. For thing to change it come down to facts and figures. Charlbury is no less bike friendly then the next place, come from the station cycle to the church dismount walk though the church yard back on the bike up the hill your in the town center not to differcult is it. There is a problem when some muppets ride their bikes the wrong way up one way street when us car drivers are speeding the other way LOL

Fri 2 Jan 2009, 00:42

Terry, why would I post something on this forum that I didn't think was right? Do you post items that you don't think are right? And if you so, why?
The point of a debate is to take a position you believe in and defend it using rational argument and logic.

I'm sorry that you find my challanging points of view `I disagree with 'hard to take'. But the pomposity is all in the perception. I don't think I'm and better than anyone else who posts on this forum. However, I also don't feel less entitled than anyone else to express and defend my point of view when it's attacked.

The unpopular point I defend is that Charlbury is more large car friendly than pedestrian or cycle friendly, in its layout, traffic circulation and lack of pedestrian pavements.
And that there is a high occurance of speeding and reckless driving in and around Charlbury. A view, by the way that is shared by the local police, other concerned parents besides myself and apparently the auto insurance assessors. (Who by the way, make their assessments based on statistics and police reports, not the opinions of people posting to this forum).

I would like to see the situation changed so that local drivers take more caution when travelling through the residential streets many of our children play near or need to cross. I also think the speed limit should be reduced to 20 mph within the village borders, because there's evidence from the department of transport that lower speed limits reduces traffic accidents.

You might disagree, but why object to my expressing the viewpoint?

Thu 1 Jan 2009, 20:08

Igor is entitled to his own views, as is everyone, but it is the pompous attitude that comes over, and the challenges towards other peoples views and opinions which I find hard to come to terms with. Nobody seems to be right only Igor,when I read the postings. That is what I personally find difficult to accept. A debate is one thing but opiniated views which slag off all and sundry are something quite different. Educated debates would be quite refreshing for 2009 PLEASE.

Thu 1 Jan 2009, 14:46

Most of you know I have my run-ins with Igor and I'm definitely not a supporter of his views however to blame him solely for the insurance increases is not fair. Could the increase not be due to the floods? with the amount of property and vehicles damaged by the water, insurance in OX7 was bound to go up.