Police pull over cyclist for using pavement — but did he do anything wrong?; Cyclists! Mind the pole: More cutting-edge infra; Shouldn't have gone to Specsavers; Dropper post chat; Golf club lane; Khan urges Londoners to cycle + more on the live blog

Rockhopper229 wrote:

That was a clear attempt to avoid a red light. If he had cycled through the road works at the speed he was going he wouldn't have held anybody up and if he did they shouldn't have been driving that fast through roadworks any way.

You're wrong
1) this is a long roadworks and they never allow enough time fur someone to travel through at 20
2) if he stops fur the red light he will not be traveling through at the same shed anyway.

having experienced a driver playing chicken with me because his light turned green when I was still in the rudderless having entered on green, I would not be incline to repeat the experience.

Sriracha wrote:

Precisely, and that is by design. There is zero thought given...

Doesn't zero thought given mean it's a lack of design?

No, just that the design failed to take any account of cyclists. Just like a staircase is designed without any thought given to how motorists would use it. The difference is that cyclists do have to use the road.

But 'failed to take any account of cyclists' is just another way of saying 'there was no design for cyclists'. It being 'by design' implies that that there was an intentional decision to make it far from ideal for cyclists.

There was some design (for other user groups), but there was a lack of design for cyclists. It's a sin of omission, rather than commission.

I'm saying there is an intentional decision to ignore the needs of cyclists, as distinct from simple oversight or ignorance. They do know that cyclists use the road, they choose to ignore the fact in their design of roadworks.

But either way, the result is cyclists are left with a multiple choice where all the answers are wrong.

Sriracha wrote:

But either way, the result is cyclists are left with a multiple choice where all the answers are wrong.

Oh, I'm not questioning that. I'm entirely picking a nit.

If you believe it was an intentional decision then there wasn't zero thought given. They did think about cyclists, and choose to make no provision for them.

mdavidford wrote:

'm entirely picking a nit.

?? 

nicmason wrote:

If you end up having to cycle on the pavement then keep your speed to walking pace. Anyone coming out of their gate on foot is not going to expect a cyclist to whizz by an inch from their nose at speed.

Agreed. This is also why I dislike certain "infrastructure" that consists of paint on a pavement.

I wonder what the police would do at the bike lane SMBC have declared that has no markings aside from an arrow painted on the road. I've asked the question of SMBC and they have not deigned to reply, but then they haven't bothered to explain how they are going to enforce the compulsory bike lane.

There is no arrow on the pavement diverting you off the end, there is just the paint of a bike lane appearing on the road

IanMSpencer wrote:

I wonder what the police would do at the bike lane SMBC have declared that has no markings aside from an arrow painted on the road. I've asked the question of SMBC and they have not deigned to reply. There is no arrow on the pavement diverting you off the end, there is just the paint of a bike lane appearing on the road

Technically, if there isn't the appropriate signage, then it's not a cycle lane. However, if went to court, I'd expect that the ambiguous road marking would be enough to get you off.

The irony being that the police van would have been stuck behind the cyclist (they really nipped past so as to be able to 'ave a word, sonny-jim"...).

Am I the only one who'd quite enjoy riding in front of the fash in primary position? That was a hell of an overtake they performed there at speed. Lucky they took that terrible, rule breaking cyclist off the road before they could give someone a momentary fright at seeing a cyclist where they didn't expect them to be. Accelerating past them well within the 1.5m zone is the only logical response to this sort of dangerous criminal act.

hirsute wrote:

So 5p off over sized, inefficient vehicle fuel. Anyone seen any active travel help?

Do you mean aside from benign neglect?

I posted this on yesterday's blog by mistake:

Meanwhile, we have IEA's 10 point plan to reduce oil usage (https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-cut-oil-use) including ideas such as car-free Sundays and what's the UK's plan? Reduce fuel duty by 5p!

And ignoring the UN !
https://road.cc/content/news/turkmen-dictator-inspires-un-resolution-pro...

hawkinspeter wrote:

I posted this on yesterday's blog by mistake:

[...]

Squirrels can see into the future?  I suppose that's how they know to cache nuts.

chrisonatrike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I posted this on yesterday's blog by mistake:

[...]

Squirrels can see into the future?  I suppose that's how they know to cache nuts.

I knew you were going to say that

hirsute wrote:

Anyone seen any active travel help?

No.

I'd like to see some official pressure put on employers to offer reasonable incentives and make reasonable accommodations to employees cycling to work. Somewhere to store the bike securely must be the minimum.

As part of their commitment to reducing carbon emissions, my employer introduced a Green Commuting Subsidy recently, where they give staff a small financial reward if they commute using a sustainable mode of transport.
It's definitely made people think about how they choose to commute.

Good spot, I missed that. Which rather begs the question who is posing more risk here - the pavement cyclist, or the police driver who first accelerates through a red light into a single lane section and then joins the cyclist on the pavement?  

Unfortunately I think the cyclist made the rod for their own back.  I wonder if the cyclist had waited for green, then moved onto the pavement to allow motor vehicles to pass whether the outcome would be different.  It's one of the frequent bingo calls on social media that cyclists mount the pavement to avoid red lights and rejoin once they have passed the red light.

Perhaps they need to go for malicious compliance.  Just tootle through the road works at 5mph holding up all of the motorists and if anyone beeps, just stop and shout at them to say they were stopped and fined for riding on the pavement ...... then carry on their way..... 

When Blues and Twos are on (well at least the blues part), they pretty much can do what they want (albeit investigated if reports are made / accidents occur). 

On the way to work yesterday I was in a rather empty inside lane due to going straight on at the island being the other two lanes. I heard the sirens behind me and luckily there was a little side road I could duck into as they didn't seem to want to slow much. Two cars went passed. 

When they got to the island here, one squeezed in the traffic but the other one went down the left hand filter and then jumped across the island ahead of his colleague.

Being roadworks as well arguably the worst place to jump lights, you have no idea what obstacles may be ahead. 

If it were just a case of hopping on the pavement to let traffic pass I would argue the police should use common sense. This would be no different to what I do on a route where the pavement is shared use, I choose to use the road due to the speed even I can haul myself along at here being too high IMHO for using a shared pavement. Traffic calming creates pinch points for motorists trying to come past, so it makes sense to hop on the path if clear to allow them through.