hope I can report this tool to the police

markhewitt1978

In recent times we've had rulings about it partly being the cyclists fault for not wearing hi-vis or not wearing a helmet etc, how long before someone gets injured and part of their compensation is witheld because they should have been using the cycle path.

Anonymous

markhewitt1978 wrote:

In recent times we've had rulings about it partly being the cyclists fault for not wearing hi-vis or not wearing a helmet etc, how long before someone gets injured and part of their compensation is witheld because they should have been using the cycle path.

Not sure on the circumstances of those cases, but if the cyclist not being visible to the motorist or having an injury that a helmet would have helped/prevented were contributing factors, then that seems fair enough to me.

As long as cycling on the road is allowed then having a cycle path next to it is irrelevant.
The cycle path is an option, not a requirement.

If it was a proper cycle lane/roadway then cycling on the road itself would/should be prohibited.

ai_1

Carbonator wrote:

As long as cycling on the road is allowed then having a cycle path next to it is irrelevant.
The cycle path is an option, not a requirement.

If it was a proper cycle lane/roadway then cycling on the road itself would/should be prohibited.

Agreed.
I don't know if the situation is similar in UK but in Ireland most cycle lanes are either along side footpaths and unsuitable for cycling at speed or they're painted onto existing roads which in most cases are not wide enough to accomodate the extra lane. The cycle lanes that ajoin footpaths are routinely used by pedestrains, have signposts in the middle of them, and stop and start abrubtly without due warning or access/exit routes. I occasionally use these in remote areas where they don't have much foot traffic or if I'm taking it easy but generally I avoid them. The lanes painted onto roads are fine where they are on newer roads wide enough to accomodate them but elsewhere they leave insufficient space for the cars you're sharing the road with. In these cases all they do is provide the illusion of segregation but in reality cars are often forced to put a wheel into the cycle lane. It would be better not to pretend there's a cycle lane when there really isn't. As far as I can tell the only reason these exist is so that politicians can claim to have created X kilometers of "cycle lanes".

Cycle lanes need to be fit for purpose and cyclists required to use them or else it should be made clear to all road users that they are optional and intended for slower bike traffic.

cattytown

Indeed. The one you miss out is the standard of surfacing of the pavement-based cycle lanes. Riding them at anything above walking pace often feels like riding a ploughed field...

StillGoing

Carbonator wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

The criticism of both seems to be the same thing; cycle paths available and not being used so deserve what they get.

People who say that should try riding a bike on a cycle 'path'.

Most cycle paths are not really an option for actually cycling anywhere, they are just for kids or shopping bikes who cycle so slowly not to mind dodging pedestrians and drivers who do not know how to interact with them.

The trouble is we live in generation easyJet, give driving licences to any moron who wants one, force bikes to use the same roads with minimal infrastructure and have cr4p laws to deal with it all.

People just want whats best for them with no regard for being part of a society, and unfortunately, this is allowed and encouraged by society.

When I was in the job I had a prat behind a desk from the same establishment (albeit a member of support staff) deliberately block me as we pulled out from the gates onto the main dual carriageway the buildings fronted on to. He tyre squealed away and forced me into the kerb. At the next set of lights he was virtually on top of the kerb to stop me coming by him and as I rode up to his side window to get a look at who I was dealing with, he tyre squealed away again to avoid me. Fortunately his people carrier was very distinctive so it wasn't a problem finding out who he was. Rather than do his legs, I sent him a polite email to remind about courtesy on the roads and to be mindful other road users could see him and his antics so what impression did he think it gave to see someone coming out of a police establishment driving like a prat. His attitude was firstly how did I manage to trace who he was accusing me of misusing the Police National Computer (his car was registered at security to use the car park so there was no need) and that I should have been using the adjacent cycle path. Trying to explain that cycling along at 20mph+ on a cycle path shared with pedestrians wasn't an option got me nowhere. So I did his legs by reporting him.

markhewitt1978

philthy3 wrote:

So I did his legs by reporting him.

Kudos! What happened to him?

StillGoing

Final warning. His boss was having problems with his attitude already and ready to load off at him, but I also involved our PSD for the bringing the force into disrepute as our exit from the grounds is controlled by traffic lights where rush hour traffic on the dual carriageway was stopped waiting and could see him driving like a cock. Trouble is nobody would know he was support staff and not a police officer who should know better.

dodgy

"did his legs"?

veronese68

dodgy wrote:

"did his legs"?

Had him kneecapped?

dsoutar

According to the Cambridge Council site, Alan Norton can be contacted on 07901 918437 or alan.norton@cambridge.gov.uk should anyone wish to enquire further about his attitude to cycling

Pross

dsoutar wrote:

According to the Cambridge Council site, Alan Norton can be contacted on 07901 918437 or alan.norton@cambridge.gov.uk should anyone wish to enquire further about his attitude to cycling

I really urge people not to. He's probably been given a good talking to by the CEO for getting her bombarded by emails so that should be enough. If he gets people harassing him it just reinforces his view of cyclists and could potentially get you in trouble for harassment.