Police pull cyclist over for not using Cycle Superhighway

L.Willo wrote:

brooksby wrote:

It is legal to use the road, and sometimes it's more convenient, and sometimes it's even safer than using the provided infrastructure.

(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons...).

For now. But not for long.

As sure as night follows day, some dick-for-brains is going to pull a stunt like that and hop off the cycle lane into unsuspecting traffic and get squished. And public sympathy will be entirely with the motorist. Mine too. And then the law will change to ensure that cyclists must use the provided infrastructure or get a fine and/or bike confiscated.

I don't know why humans are so stupid that they need to see totally predictable deaths happening before doing the bleeding obvious ... but that is what it will take and the debate will be over.

Book it.

 

 

Are you suggesting that compulsory use of cycle lanes is obvious and sensible? That would make cycling to new places very difficult, as you would need to research cycle infrastructure at thd route planning stage to avoid getting caught on some downright dangerous cycle lanes.

(Google "common dangers with cycle lanes you tube") anyone who has 'designed' a roundabout with a cycle lane running round the outside should be prevented from doing any more road design.

brooksby wrote:

We campaigned for decent off-road infrastructure, like the Dutch seem to have managed. We didn't get it. We got half-assed shared-use painted line rubbish, in by far the majority of cases.

It is legal to use the road, and sometimes it's more convenient, and sometimes it's even safer than using the provided infrastructure.

(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons...).

So that's two votes for down-vote / thumbs down buttons

L.Willo wrote:

 

(Gosh, sometimes I wish road.cc had thumbs-down buttons...).

Damn good idea, somebody get on that please.

whobiggs wrote:

Damn good idea, somebody get on that please.

It's doable but some schwag is required.

L.Willo wrote:

Nevertheless, what the road network was built for is interesting but more salient is what it is used for. Transportation, primarily motorised transportation and we cannot have it both ways.

We cannot argue that the road layouts are unsafe and lethal, and have die-ins and leave ghost bikes left, right and centre, and go on critical mass rides etc .... and when the powers that be finally act and do something .... sneer and refuse to use the provision because it is not perfect, too slow, or inconvenient or isnt the quickest route as the crow flies etc .... 

So why build any more cycling infrastructure and why not tear up the existing ones if usage is not necessary? Have we all been lying? Were the roads perfectly safe all along?

Terrible argument. Of course you can complain about the dangerous roads AND complain about  dangerous cycle lanes, because they are by and large a complete waste of time. Ghettoising cyclist into the part of the road that is not recommended as being safe to ride in by  government guidelines is beyond stupid. 

You don't congratulate councils for doing the wrong thing, you try and convince them to do what actually works instead. 

Of note, the idiot policeman tells the cyclist for not cycling on the cycle path just before it vanishes and is replaced by a bus stop that forces cyclists to pull out into the traffic. 

"

If as a pedestrian, I think that people are walking too slowly in front of me on Oxford Street, would it be reasonable for me to decide to jump off the pavement without warning and jog down the middle of the fucking road because I can actually run at the pace of a city bus or taxi?

"

I frequently do that on busy town centre streets, albeit whilst walking. I don't expect to get hassle from the police about it.

L.Willo wrote:

He missed the entrance because he couldnt be arsed to use his brakes. 

He missed th entrance, whatever the actual reason (distraction, lazy, )

Up to that point he was, cetainly from what I can see,  using the bike lane, wating behind other cyclists, waiting at red lights, and did not display any sign of prefering to use the road.

Now having missed the entrance - what were his legal options ? and why did he get a tug ?

L.Willo wrote:

Pavements are provided for pedestrians because it is too dangerous for them to share the roads with fast moving heavy traffic.

actually NO, pavements were there BEFORE motor vehicles... they gave pedestrians a place to walk that wasn't filled with horse droppings...

Gloucester Southgate Street in 1889...
http://www.theoldbell-tigerseye.co.uk/custom/Southgate.jpg

that 'bus' is an electric trolley bus...

L.Willo wrote:

 

When there is a cycle lane there, bought and paid for by the tax payer because we as cyclists have quite rightly campaigned long and hard for road layout improvements to dangerous junctions, to make cycling a safer and more attractive option for everyone, not just the fit, brave and/or foolhardy .... and you decide that you are far too important to use it because you simply MUST-GET-IN-FRONT of the lowly Decathlon Hopridercrowd .... that makes you a self-centred, self-entitled, arrogant twat and you deserve every ounce of the pain that is surely coming your way one day.

I would be perfectly happy with a change in the law that says where a cycle lane has been provided, it is compulsory to use it otherwise, why waste tax payers money building them?

 A £90 on the spot fine should do the trick nicely.

I teach bike ability and one of the things I sadly have to explain is why you shouldn't automatically use cycle lanes. The reason being is that most of them are not only pointless, but dangerous. The safe distance for cycling is usually further away from kerb than the width of a cycle lane and that's only  if you are happy to share the road with other vehicles  and ride in secondary position.  If you do not want other road to pass, because it is not safe for them to do so, then you ride in primary, i.e. the middle of the lane. This position is not only a safe place to be, but the actual default legal position for a bike to ride and it is the same for all vehicles. Allowing others to pass is a curtesy, not an obligation. 

L.Willo wrote:

Ush wrote:

. And all your argumentation suggests that you completely accept the idea that it is somehow selfish of a cyclist to dare to be in the way of another vehicle on the road. To me that makes you much more of tosser and a twat than anyone, except perhaps the idiot policeman that threw a hissy fit.

When there is a cycle lane there, bought and paid for by the tax payer because we as cyclists have quite rightly campaigned long and hard for road layout improvements to dangerous junctions, to make cycling a safer and more attractive option for everyone, not just the fit, brave and/or foolhardy .... and you decide that you are far too important to use it because you simply MUST-GET-IN-FRONT of the lowly Decathlon Hopridercrowd .... that makes you a self-centred, self-entitled, arrogant twat and you deserve every ounce of the pain that is surely coming your way one day.

I would be perfectly happy with a change in the law that says where a cycle lane has been provided, it is compulsory to use it otherwise, why waste tax payers money building them?

 A £90 on the spot fine should do the trick nicely.

But it seems the cyclist is taking a right turn two lanes of traffic between that and the csh. Or was he just going there to hide from the police?

emishi55 wrote:

A message for Sadiq Khan and his 'cycle lanes don't need to be so wide' comment.

Has he really said that?  Well, darn, if I lived in London then he'd have lost my vote right there!!

BigManLittleHair wrote:

If cops like this could just put the same equivalent effort into stopping mobile phone using drivers... That'd be nice.

As is, I believe this cop just happens to be another anti-cyclist person who happens to wear a badge. Happily he got schooled.

 

Can you clarify why he is 'anti cyclist'?

Because he stopped and spoke to a cyclist? Maybe that day he was also anti drug dealer, anti burglar, anti pickpocket as well, maybe even anti mobile phone using motorist!!! 

DivineChorus wrote:

Can you clarify why he is 'anti cyclist'?

Because he stopped and spoke to a cyclist? Maybe that day he was also anti drug dealer, anti burglar, anti pickpocket as well, maybe even anti mobile phone using motorist!!! 

So cycling is a crime now?

DivineChorus wrote:

maybe even anti mobile phone using motorist!!! 

You've gone too far there... 

PaulBox wrote:

DivineChorus wrote:

maybe even anti mobile phone using motorist!!! 

You've gone too far there... 

I know, too busy hammering RLJers like there's no tomorrow whilst smiling at motorists, giving them a big thumbs up and mouthing 'Got another one!!" 

Or so it would appear to some forum members on here.