# Idiot in car trying to make a point by driving down cyclepath



## Gixxerman (5 Sep 2016)

From roadcc, http://road.cc/content/news/203537-video-if-you-are-cycling-road-then-ill-drive-path.
What a prize tool. Hope they track the driver down and dish out an appropriate punishment.
I expect the driver thinks they are making a point, and being clever. But nothing can be further from the truth.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Sep 2016)

Good grief.


----------



## sight-pin (5 Sep 2016)

Makes a change i suppose, they normally just park on them.


----------



## Profpointy (5 Sep 2016)

seems like a good thing to me. After all, they're f-all use for cycling on


----------



## Bollo (5 Sep 2016)

It would have been ironic if the car had picked up a puncture from all the typical sh1te on the cycle path.


----------



## Globalti (5 Sep 2016)

Wow, those roads are flat aren't they?


----------



## ianrauk (5 Sep 2016)

As one of the reply's to the thread on RCC.

T_hat is a brilliant idea. I reckon on Sunday mornings cars should only be allowed to use cycle paths, leaving the roads free for cycling, running, walking, horse riding, kids in go carts, street hockey etc.

This may of course lead to calls by motorists and motoring organisations for cycle path facilities to be upgraded and expanded, but what the heck, that might mean they become fit for use by all cyclists during the week._


----------



## David L (5 Sep 2016)

Lucky no one was using the path, why anyone would think i know I'll drive on the path


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (5 Sep 2016)

I look forward to the idiot being identified on Facebook, claiming to be the victim and getting away scot-free.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Sep 2016)

"Sun was in my eyes"


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?


----------



## glenn forger (5 Sep 2016)

Take a look at the Highway Code and it will explain, amazing how many drivers dont know this.


----------



## Gixxerman (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?


Maybe it was a shared path and they were going too fast to safely use it?


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

Ah, fair enough. That's something outwith my experience.


----------



## MossCommuter (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?


http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/why-don-t-cyclists-use-cycle-paths_62797#


----------



## Phaeton (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?


Yes they can't ride 4 abreast on the cycle path it's not wide enough


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?


I'll field this one, because my village is behind the trees in the video. 

It's actually not that rough or narrow as shared paths go, but it isn't great. The path is only about 1/2 mile long and you have to get off the path 200m into Cottenham and about 100m into Rampton. However, at most times of year and especially now as the fields to the right have just been harvested, ploughed and drilled, they will be covered in all of the usual tyre shredding crap.

At both ends, the path is heavily encroached by bushes narrowing it to barely a pedestrians width, because you can't cut the bushes before September. At which point, the flints will be joined by splinters.

A story familiar to us all I'm sure.

Russ


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

PS. The number plate looks familiar (how many Manc regged Merivas are there in The Fens?) and I also know the owner of the video is taking it to the police.

Russ


----------



## mjr (5 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> At both ends, the path is heavily encroached by bushes narrowing it to barely a pedestrians width, because you can't cut the bushes before September they didn't cut the bushes back far enough to allow for growth without encroachment. At which point, the flints will be joined by splinters.


Fixed that for you.



> A story familiar to us all I'm sure.


It's familiar to me. I've ridden that one. It's OK but as you say, too narrow thanks to bushes, close enough to the road that it collects debris and generally undermaintained. I assume it was built with something like Safe Routes To School money because in terms of most journeys, it basically connects naff-all to naff-all alongside a road which isn't that nasty compared to others you'll probably want to use to get anywhere.


----------



## mjr (5 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> It's actually not that rough or narrow as shared paths go, but it isn't great. The path is only about 1/2 mile long and you have to get off the path 200m into Cottenham and about 100m into Rampton.


I just reminded myself on bird's eye view of how the ends were. A full group trying to make the tight turn onto it and squeeze past a couple of dark poles at the Rampton end would be entertaining enough, but crossing a half-dozen driveways nearly blind before a tight turn back onto the road at the allotments at the Cottenham end could be dangerous. Surface quality doesn't look great, possibly due to cars parking with two wheels up on it. I'd be a bit wary of taking a touring group along it because of those ends, so right call by a "cycling as a sport" club IMO.


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

If it's any consolation it's not a lot better in my part of France. The problem here is that there are cycle lanes everywhere but they're most often just a part of the main road so you're at the mercy of cars. Drivers do tend to give more space here though & they're far less aggressive generally. There's a lot of glass about though which you have to watch out for all the time. I've no idea why they like smashing glass so much.

My friend stays in Emmen in the Netherlands and it's a different world. I'm going to visit later in the year and this time I'll be taking my bike with me. I can't wait. The whole town is geared around two wheels.


----------



## si_c (5 Sep 2016)

mjr said:


> I just reminded myself on bird's eye view of how the ends were. A full group trying to make the tight turn onto it and squeeze past a couple of dark poles at the Rampton end would be entertaining enough, but crossing a half-dozen driveways nearly blind before a tight turn back onto the road at the allotments at the Cottenham end could be dangerous. Surface quality doesn't look great, possibly due to cars parking with two wheels up on it. I'd be a bit wary of taking a touring group along it because of those ends, so right call by a "cycling as a sport" club IMO.



Utterly crap infrastructure, waste of money and better off not there, it's actually creating conflicts rather than helping to avoid them.


----------



## coffeejo (5 Sep 2016)

ianrauk said:


> As one of the reply's to the thread on RCC.
> 
> T_hat is a brilliant idea. I reckon on Sunday mornings cars should only be allowed to use cycle paths, leaving the roads free for cycling, running, walking, horse riding, kids in go carts, street hockey etc.
> 
> This may of course lead to calls by motorists and motoring organisations for cycle path facilities to be upgraded and expanded, but what the heck, that might mean they become fit for use by all cyclists during the week._


Brilliant!


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452051, member: 45"]Nothing coming the other way for the whole of that clip. Why did he not just overtake?[/QUOTE]
REASONS! 

I encountered one of these in Manchester, although the driver in question wasn't particularly angry, just particularly stupid. (If you know the bit of off road path that passes the shops opposite the MRI on Oxford Road, he was driving along that).


----------



## Profpointy (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?



Well I could hazard a guess they didn't want to go on a less convenient, slower, more dangerous, and likely glass strewn route


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452051, member: 45"]Nothing coming the other way for the whole of that clip. Why did he not just overtake?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he regularly gets stuck behind bikes and this time, when he'd decided to take action, sods law dictated the road would be clear.


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Well I could hazard a guess they didn't want to go on a less convenient, slower, more dangerous, and likely glass strewn route



Of course & I get that but the drivers on that stretch probably don't understand the point the cyclists are making. Those drivers will just see the cyclists as arrogant.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Of course & I get that but the drivers on that stretch probably don't understand the point the cyclists are making. Those drivers will just see the cyclists as arrogant.


If only people had to take some kind of test before getting a driving license, perhaps one in which they might have to learn about that Highway Code they have nowadays.


----------



## Profpointy (5 Sep 2016)

John the Monkey said:


> If only people had to take some kind of test before getting a driving license, perhaps one in which they might have to learn about that Highway Code they have nowadays.



If only those people specifying cycle lanes, spend maybe 5 minutes thinking about design before spending millions of pounds of our money.
Or are they just built by the Daily Mail motoring lobby purely out of malice?


----------



## Gixxerman (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452051, member: 45"]Nothing coming the other way for the whole of that clip. Why did he not just overtake?[/QUOTE]
Because I asume he wanted to make a point. The point being that if there is a cyclepath, they should be using it, and not using the road he pays for with his road tax. I may be wrong, but I'd wager quite a lot of money on me being close to the mark.


----------



## mjr (5 Sep 2016)

si_c said:


> Utterly crap infrastructure, waste of money and better off not there, it's actually creating conflicts rather than helping to avoid them.


Maybe. It's a near miss. If the council ever actually finished the bloody thing (a Dutch-style crossing at Rampton and maybe connect across the alltoments to the sports field and school at Cottenham) and maintained it properly, it could be a decent example. This is why the olympians are right to demand 5% of every year's transport budget instead of the current short-term special-target funds like the Safe Route To School grants which I suspect paid for that. An 8-year-old may well be going slow enough to make the tight turns at its ends, but a sports club won't. These things should be designed for everyone, or clearly labelled as to their flaws (which should be a hint to motorists why a sports club isn't on it).


----------



## Jamieyorky (5 Sep 2016)

That has to be one of worst bit of driving ive ever seen !


----------



## mjr (5 Sep 2016)

Profpointy said:


> If only those people specifying cycle lanes, spend maybe 5 minutes thinking about design before spending millions of pounds of our money.


You probably can't hire the best designers on short-term low-budget cycling project grants, and even the skilled few you do get (generally those with beliefs in cycling as a solution) are going to be hamstrung by grant bids generally hurriedly rustled up by non-highways project managers who didn't spot the need for things like junctions at the ends and periodic access points along them.


----------



## G3CWI (5 Sep 2016)

Jamieyorky said:


> That has to be one of worst bit of driving ive ever seen




You must have led a very sheltered life.


----------



## snorri (5 Sep 2016)

Jamieyorky said:


> That has to be one of worst bit of driving ive ever seen !


It was a lot better than the driver indicating displeasure by giving the cyclists a close pass which probably would not have shown up satisfactorily on video to interest the police. .


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452132, member: 45"]Crap for who though? Dawdlers who don't want to have to mix with traffic may disagree.[/QUOTE]
Dawdlers _are_ traffic.


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

I don't understand why they don't hire someone Dutch.


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452135, member: 45"]How often should cyclists be expected to explain themselves?[/QUOTE]

Once _should _be enough.


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Of course & I get that but the drivers on that stretch probably don't understand the point the cyclists are making. Those drivers will just see the cyclists as arrogant.


When I choose to ignore unsuitable cycle paths, which I do for 99% of cycle paths that I see, I'm not "making a point". I'm not trying to communicate my feelings about the cycle paths to anyone. I'm just ignoring them and getting on with my day.

If someone asks for an explanation of why I'm not riding on the cycle path, I don't provide it. It's none of their business.


----------



## snorri (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> I don't understand why they don't hire someone Dutch.


Because they think they know what is required, some of them even cycle dontchaknow?
Sorry.


Design is only one part of the problem, the failure to spend on maintenance is another.


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

Yeah I know. Brits are experts at everything.


----------



## EnPassant (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> I don't understand why they don't hire someone Dutch.


And blow the whole budget on an EasyJet ticket?


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

Oh to be Dutch..


----------



## Goggs (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452249, member: 45"]How do you envisage this happening? Scrolling led sign on their back?[/QUOTE]

I'm not really sure mate. Perhaps people could stop voting for self-serving morons. Might be a start anyway.


----------



## Paulus (5 Sep 2016)

Gixxerman said:


> Because I asume he wanted to make a point. The point being that if there is a cyclepath, they should be using it, and not using the road he pays for with his road tax. I may be wrong, but I'd wager quite a lot of money on me being close to the mark.


I assume you are being a bit tongue in cheek with this comment, If there is a cycle path , cyclists have no need to use it in law, and as to road tax, well.


----------



## Gixxerman (5 Sep 2016)

Paulus said:


> I assume you are being a bit tongue in cheek with this comment, If there is a cycle path , cyclists have no need to use it in law, and as to road tax, well.


It was very much tongue in cheek. I was second-guessing his reasons for doing it from his point of view.


----------



## fossyant (5 Sep 2016)

Need to do this then !!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEkDKgEN_U8


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452244, member: 45"]Dawdlers are traffic if they want to be...[/QUOTE]
Not really. If they are travelling along routes of transportation, then they are traffic; whether they want to be or not.


----------



## bozmandb9 (5 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> Just to play Devils advocate does anyone know why the cyclists were on the road instead of the bike path?



I would nearly always choose to use roads rather than cycle path. Most cycle paths are not suitable for road bike tyres, or road bike speeds, in my experience they are dangerous at road biking speeds, and frustrating to use, often taking you off route, not to mention frequent stops at give way points where they are intersected.

Cycle paths are, in my view, great for recreational cyclists to use, to cycle away from the roads. Sharing use with road cyclists is, in many cases, a spectacularly bad idea. I guess the clues in the name (road bike/ road cyclist).


----------



## Bazzer (5 Sep 2016)

glenn forger said:


> "Sun was in my eyes"



Wot? Reading a "newspaper" as well as demonstrating his eligibility to the tossers club? 
Just a pity there were not a couple bricks in the places where he crossed, to knacker his suspension.


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

I'd like to point out that the cycle path is very much welcome and I use it regularly - Just not on my roadie. I use it on the MTB or Charge Plug and without it, a village full of cyclists and pedestrians of all ages, joggers, etc, would be isolated from the larger village (Cottenham) that has all of the shops, bank machines, take-aways, etc, with nought but a grass verged open limit country road to connect them.

Imperfect as it is, it's one helluva lot better than walking against that sort of a traffic and I'm glad it is there.

If you want an example of farkwit local planning, then it's the [mis]Guided Busway that has a wide flat and fast cycleway adjacent to it, running a scant 400m from the end of our village and runs directly into Cambridge. Now despite the fact we're only 6 miles as the crow flies from Cambridge, we only get two buses per day. One at 7am and one at 7pm. Despite this howling opportunity to integrate and improve infrastructure, there is neither a stop at our village, nor even a surfaced path to the MGB.

That my friends, IS a transport planning failure.

Russell


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

mjr said:


> Fixed that for you.


As I drink with the farmer who does a lot of the hedge cutting and maintenance of local drainage infrastructure (something your crowd in Somerset are probably taking more seriously now!) I am reliably told that it is not possible/allowed between 1st March to 31st August due to an EU regulation protecting breeding/rearing season. there are derogations possible, but none that apply on the two stretches in question. More here.

Russell

PS. He slows down to 25mph to let me draught him in his tractor when we see each other. A good egg.


----------



## coffeejo (5 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> As I drink with the farmer who does a lot of the hedge cutting and maintenance of local drainage infrastructure (something your crowd in Somerset are probably taking more seriously now!) I am reliably told that it is not possible/allowed between 1st March to 31st August due to an EU regulation protecting breeding/rearing season. there are derogations possible, but none that apply on the two stretches in question. More here.
> 
> Russell
> 
> PS. He slows down to 25mph to let me draught him in his tractor when we see each other. A good egg.


mjr meant that if the hedge/bush had been cut back in February v it wouldn't have grown back so much.


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

To be fair, it was. In late January I think, but with a warm wet summer, things grow like wild fire in The Fens.

Russell


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452452, member: 45"]Only in the same way that pedestrians are.[/QUOTE]Sorry, what's your point?


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452669, member: 45"]The "we are traffic" tag is used to underline that bikes have a rightful place on the road.

I would agree with that, but argue that a bicycle isn't just a road vehicle and so isn't just traffic. It has as rightful a place on a cycle track or shared use path as on the road. We should not deny those who choose not to mix with traffic the opportunity to get around by bicycle.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but a bicycle being ridden is traffic, and that's it. It's not anything else. You might mean that people who don't want to mix with _motor vehicles_ should have the choice.


----------



## mjr (5 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> To be fair, it was. In late January I think, but with a warm wet summer, things grow like wild fire in The Fens.


Should still cut it back more. On the Somerset levels, they generally cut hedges back far more severely than in the fens... plus the ones to the south and east are kept low, so that the sun can thaw the road earlier in winters.


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452847, member: 45"]I think you know what I'm saying. I'm not arguing about definitions - I've already acknowledged that pedestrians are also traffic. This is about bicycles being more than road traffic.[/QUOTE]You said:
[QUOTE 4452244, member: 45"]Dawdlers are traffic if they want to be.[/QUOTE]I said:


r04DiE said:


> Dawdlers _are_ traffic.


That is all, so stop trying to confuse the issue, derail the content and split hairs like I so often see you do, just so that you can look right all the time. At the end of the day 'Dawdlers', i.e. people riding bicycles _are_ traffic, as I pointed out initially and it is fruitless and rather silly for you to try to propose that they are more than that.

So let's not take over this thread any longer, please feel free to message me if you want to discuss this further. It's okay to admit that you got this wrong, there's nothing terriblre about admitting you're wrong. Traffic is traffic.


----------



## Alien8 (5 Sep 2016)

Ah, the joys of the Cottenham/Rampton cycle path.

Lamp post & telegraph pole in the way? No problem.







You can read about its other features here.

The path was _upgraded _to its current state in 2008 when the Council decided they wanted to remove the free Rampton/Cottenham school bus whilst encouraging walking/cycling to school.

They quickly caved in to the wails of protest from the parents and agreed that the new path was indeed not safe.

And a mere eight years later they have been proved right!


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4452970, member: 45"]I've not disagreed with you.[/QUOTE]No, _I_ have disagreed with _you_.
[QUOTE 4452970, member: 45"]...so my point...[/QUOTE]Your 'point' was that people on bicycles are able to choose whether or not they are traffic, thus:
[QUOTE 4452244, member: 45"]Dawdlers are traffic if they want to be. They should have a choice.[/QUOTE]
And on a cycle lane, or on the road, as in the case here, they cannot do that. As I said, please message me if you want to continue discussing this. That's if you can bear to continue without an audience to flex your intellectual muscle in front of. Be polite now, please.


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4453008, member: 45"]No it wasn't.[/QUOTE]
Oh, hang on a minute; you're right. Sorry about that, I'm an idiot.


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

Alien8 said:


> Ah, the joys of the Cottenham/Rampton cycle path.
> 
> Lamp post & telegraph pole in the way? No problem.
> 
> ...


I'll grant you, in isolation they don't look clever, but they are within the 30 limit and there is no provision for cyclists to share an off-road path from that point on until the other side of Willingham. That is the end of shared use provision north of Cambridge, but at least it is _there_ and not just a painted line on the road.

Far worse is the new speed island (which would be just to the right of that picture) that forces even cars obeying the speed limit into the path of each other, courtesy of a blind bend behind that camera viewpoint. I have seen cars exiting the village having to mount the pavement pictured to avoid oncoming vehicles and as someone following, can honestly say that neither involved appeared to be speeding. Now, of course both could have gone slower round a known hazard and impatience (topical here) is the aggravating factor, but both were within the law. Road design is frequently no better designed than the cycling provision and in this case, has done nothing to slow traffic within the village. That is a greater hazard to the path users than those posts, which everybody knows are there. My 7yo mini-me has been managing to avoid them since he was four and he's a nut case.

He's also about to get a Frog Road 67 on Saturday, but I'll have to leave the CX tyres fitted so he can get to the MGB...

Russell


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

r04DiE said:


> Oh, hang on a minute; you're right. Sorry about that, I'm an idiot.


No, you're both idiots because you've wandered off into a debate that, if an outsider was reading this, serves to make us all look like idiotic bedroom keyboard warriors getting pissy over the placement of an errant apostrophe. Admittedly, good enough reason historically to start a war, but this is only the internet and you can't have the last word, which is all that seems to be bothering you....

So please desist, because when you filter out the signal from your nihilistic noise, there's actually discussion about behaviour that affects all of us going on.

Russell


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

russ.will said:


> No, you're both idiots because you've wandered off into a debate that, if an outsider was reading this, serves to make us all look like idiotic bedroom keyboard warriors getting pissy over the placement of an errant apostrophe. Admittedly, good enough reason historically to start a war, but this is only the internet and you can't have the last word, which is all that seems to be bothering you....
> 
> So please desist, because when you filter out the signal from your nihilistic noise, there's actually discussion about behaviour that affects all of us going on.
> 
> Russell


You're too late; I have already desisted, and I did try to take the discussion away from the thread, twice. And don't call me an idiot, its rude, and very keyboard warriorish. If you've got anything else to say then message me, please.


----------



## russ.will (5 Sep 2016)

Russell


----------



## Goggs (6 Sep 2016)

Alien8 said:


> Ah, the joys of the Cottenham/Rampton cycle path.
> 
> Lamp post & telegraph pole in the way? No problem.
> 
> ...



That's just embarrassing frankly. I like to think the worker told to do that did so then quit the next day, but I doubt it.


----------



## Levo-Lon (6 Sep 2016)

Its the Fens...nothing unusual about that


----------



## Profpointy (6 Sep 2016)

Goggs said:


> That's just embarrassing frankly. I like to think the worker told to do that did so then quit the next day, but I doubt it.



To be fair, someone has used a bit of initiative to add the extra loop to allow the cyclist to turn off the pavement into the road. Good thinking !
All these naysayers criticising cycle lanes. You should be grateful

You may not be able to polish a turd, but you can sprinkle it with glitter.


----------



## Elybazza61 (6 Sep 2016)

Just have to say that I'm a member of that club and it's not the first time we've had 'issues' with drivers on club runs;even had a chap overtake then stop in front to berate us about blocking his way,didn't seem to realise that he had wasted about ten times as much time moaning than he was being behind us.


----------



## Gixxerman (6 Sep 2016)

Elybazza61 said:


> Just have to say that I'm a member of that club and it's not the first time we've had 'issues' with drivers on club runs;even had a chap overtake then stop in front to berate us about blocking his way,didn't seem to realise that he had wasted about ten times as much time moaning than he was being behind us.


Isn't that often the case? It bemuses me that they are so irate about being held up for 30 seconds, but are then totally fine to waste 5 minutes berating the people who caused it. Baffling.


----------

