# "The cyclist was causing an obstruction"



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

Police are appealing for witnesses after a cyclist threw a drink at a driver and was abusive on Twickenham Bridge earlier this year.

The rush hour clash, on the A316 towards Richmond on Thursday, March 13, was sparked when the 27-year-old female driver asked the cyclist why he was not using the cycle lane.

She stopped at a red light at about 7.20am and said to the cyclist, a white man wearing a light blue jacket, if he knew there was a cycle path.

The cyclist, aged between about 45 and 50-years-old, had been cycling in the middle of the busy A road and causing an obstruction.

After he was confronted he shouted and swore at the driver and threw a drink at her before he cycled off towards the Richmond Circus roundabout.

http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtim...rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Is it, like, the law that if a journalist writes a story about cycling it has to be pig-ignorant? The damp lady driver is ignorant of the Highway Code, so is Amy Dydurch, who wrote that article.


----------



## jay clock (1 May 2014)

It sounds like a case of assault not obstruction


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

Well, we've only got the driver's version, and she plainly doesn't know the Highway Code says faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane, and there are often good reasons for taking primary, and I for one would appreciate it if people didn't yell from cars as I'm cycling because I'm concentrating on staying alive.


----------



## jay clock (1 May 2014)

Agreed about her being wrong but the cyclist assaulted her. Not going to help his case is it


----------



## Cycleops (1 May 2014)

Maybe the cyclist was drunk and I'm sure the motorist's comment to him wasn't along the lines of : 'Sorry to bother you but did you not realise there is cycle lane'.


----------



## Rob3rt (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Well, we've only got the driver's version, and she plainly doesn't know the Highway Code says faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane, and there are often good reasons for taking primary, and I for one would appreciate it if people didn't yell from cars as I'm cycling because* I'm concentrating on staying alive*.



Most people find this effortless, but the fact you do not is hardly surprising!


----------



## sheddy (1 May 2014)

No, the motorist was clearly hot and bothered and needed a refreshing shower.


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

I reckon the driver was on smack. If he was in the middle of the road how could she have a conversation with him at the lights? It's quite hard to throw things behind you while cycling. She sounds like a pathological liar with sociopathic tendencies and a bubble wrap popping addiction.


----------



## snorri (1 May 2014)

Jolly bad form on the part of the cyclist who should have been pleased to have had the opportunity to share his knowledge of roadcraft with the driver. Besides, sharing soft drinks is just so unhygenic.


----------



## Crankarm (1 May 2014)

Why didn't the filth tell her they couldn't and wouldn't do anything? This is what generally happens if a cyclist reports that a car driver / moton has tried to or actually driven into one of us. She is clearly wasting police time. They could be doing something so much more constructive like cooking the crime figures, making false statements, excepting bungs or even killing people - RIP Ian Tomlinson or all those that lost their lives at Hillsborough.


----------



## numbnuts (1 May 2014)

If people minded their own flipping business this wouldn't have happened


----------



## PK99 (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Well, we've only got the driver's version, and she plainly doesn't know the *Highway Code says faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane*, and there are often good reasons for taking primary, and I for one would appreciate it if people didn't yell from cars as I'm cycling because I'm concentrating on staying alive.



the road in question has an excellent cycle path alongside

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4588513,-0.3163791,91m/data=!3m1!1e3

plus can you point to the HWC section that says the bit i highlight?


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

cycle lanes per mile travelled are more dangerous than the road, the driver verbally assaulted a man doing nothing more than being safe.

*59-82: Rules for cyclists | nidirect*
www.nidirect.gov.uk/59-82-rules-for-cyclists

Highway code rules specifically for cyclists. ... Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 May 2014)

As I drove into work this morning there was a car in the middle of the road going slower than me and causing an obstruction.
Maybe I should have pulled alongside at the next junction and asked them why they didn't use another road?

Slow news day.

Meanwhile, police reveal that new tailgating and lane hogging penalty powers have been used 8000 times in a year, whereas those driving without insurance have been caught 150,000 times.
Forget dangerous driving as long as the money is coming in!


----------



## snorri (1 May 2014)

PK99 said:


> the road in question has an excellent cycle path alongside


Actually it looks to be of sub-standard width although it widens considerably on the other side of the bridge.


----------



## vickster (1 May 2014)

Surely drivers not having insurance is a serious issue, and not just about money. That would be VED


----------



## Brandane (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> *59-82: Rules for cyclists | nidirect*
> www.nidirect.gov.uk/59-82-rules-for-cyclists
> 
> Highway code rules specifically for cyclists. ... Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills.



Yes, so where does it say "faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane"?

You still haven't got the hang of this quoting stuff have you? You give your interpretation of something, and claim you are quoting. Time and time again.

The Highway Code could be interpreted differently by some, to mean: Inexperienced cyclists should stick to the road rather than try to negotiate the many obstructions on cycle lanes, such as broken glass, other debris, pedestrians, tree roots, dogs and their waste, parked vehicles, emerging vehicles, drain covers, pot-holes etc. etc..


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

Do you think the Highway Code is suggesting you go faster on cycle lanes? have you considered cycle training?



Most cycle lanes are about a metre wide. If you can find anywhere in the Highway Code where it says it's safe to cycle at speed along here I'd like to see it.







Cycle lanes are for children or insecure, wobbly cyclists. When the discussion about the amendments took place in 2007 it was agreed the clause should be inserted that cycle lanes are not for everyone, for the obvious reasons in that picture. if you think it's safe to cycle above ten mph on that lane you need cycle training. Don't you adjust your speed according to lane width? Given a cycle lane or a road, which would you feel safer cycling at speed on?

The cycle lanes round there are also abused by motorists ;

http://road.cc/content/news/80582-t...ally-using-cycle-lane-police-launch-crackdown

So the driver yelled at someone doing nothing wrong and demanded he use a more dangerous facility.


----------



## PK99 (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> cycle lanes per mile travelled are more dangerous than the road, the driver verbally assaulted a man doing nothing more than being safe.
> 
> *59-82: Rules for cyclists | nidirect*
> www.nidirect.gov.uk/59-82-rules-for-cyclists
> ...



Thank you for confirming that it does not say what you claimed in your earlier post


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

you think it's safer to cycle faster on narrower lanes?


----------



## PK99 (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Do you think the Highway Code is suggesting you go faster on cycle lanes? have you considered cycle training?
> 
> 
> So the driver yelled at someone doing nothing wrong and demanded he use a more dangerous facility.







the cycle lane and road in question
http://goo.gl/gbQmnG

BTW, where does it say the driver yelled at the cyclist? Or in fact "demanded" anything?


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

The DfT has an excelent "Code of conduct for cyclists"The following key messages are suggested as the basis for a code of conduct notice for cyclists. The code could be posted at points of entry and at intervals along the route. This will be especially useful when the facility is new.

* * If a feature segregating cyclists from pedestrians is present, keep to the cyclist’s side. This will be indicated on blue and white road signs and by cycle logos on the surface.
* * Ride on the left hand side of the area available to you. If you need to overtake another cyclist, give a gentle ring on your bell or say ‘Excuse me’.
* * When coming up behind pedestrians, always pass them at a safe distance, and slowly enough so that you could avoid them if they made a sudden change in direction.

** * Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.*

The Highway Code is clear, unless you think their reference to experience means they think children and nervous cyclists should use the road?


----------



## jefmcg (1 May 2014)

There is no cycle lane along there, only a shared use footpath that rightly pedestrians complain about sharing because it is just a footpath. The London road roundabout (two before the bridge) has no safe crossing for pedestrians or cyclists, and just before reaching the bridge, anyone using the footpath/cyclepath have to cross this side street, which is very dangerous as cars enter it at 40mph without indicating.

Woman is an idiot.


----------



## jefmcg (1 May 2014)

PK99 said:


> View attachment 43848
> 
> the cycle lane and road in question
> http://goo.gl/gbQmnG


there is that section, that runs a full 0.8 miles.


----------



## PK99 (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The DfT has an excelent "Code of conduct for cyclists"The following key messages are suggested as the basis for a code of conduct notice for cyclists. The code could be posted at points of entry and at intervals along the route. This will be especially useful when the facility is new.
> 
> * * If a feature segregating cyclists from pedestrians is present, keep to the cyclist’s side. This will be indicated on blue and white road signs and by cycle logos on the surface.
> * * Ride on the left hand side of the area available to you. If you need to overtake another cyclist, give a gentle ring on your bell or say ‘Excuse me’.
> ...





that is very interesting, i am already aware of it as a recommendation FOR a code of conduct, but cannot find such a published code, perhaps you can help me out?

It is not, as far as i know part of the highway code, as you still seem to be claiming, . I'm happy to be proved wrong on that. Can you point me to the bits you refer to?

By the way, do you know the speed the cyclist was doing on the road at the time. I generally find that particular cycle path quicker than the road esp when the road is busy at commuter times


----------



## JasonHolder (1 May 2014)

I hit an on coming cyclist (who was on wring side of road to begin with) on a bike lane once as i was just leaving town 10k into a 300k endurance ride. It was the kind that is actually painted on the road, left unconcious, Broke my nose and hair line fracture in my sternum.
Forks broken in half and ultegra front wheel destroyed too.

Personally will never ride any where near a bike lane and haven't for 10years.


----------



## vickster (1 May 2014)

Because cars on the road don't pose any sort of threat to cyclists . Another reason why it is correct that the legal requirement for car insurance should be enforced!


----------



## Big Nick (1 May 2014)

Crankarm said:


> Why didn't the filth tell her they couldn't and wouldn't do anything? This is what generally happens if a cyclist reports that a car driver / moton has tried to or actually driven into one of us. She is clearly wasting police time. They could be doing something so much more constructive like cooking the crime figures, making false statements, excepting bungs or even killing people - RIP Ian Tomlinson or all those that lost their lives at Hillsborough.


Good job you've no axe to grind.....


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

The cyclist was not riding primary he was riding down the middle white line, the drink he threw was in a 1/2 litre glass bottle. The driver concerned that the cyclist was drunk was just trying to help him ride in a suitable area when he became abusive.


----------



## cd365 (1 May 2014)

I hope the police put her right and informed her that cyclists do not have to use a cycle path. I somehow doubt it.
Nasty cyclist and innocent female car driver, who found it within her to poke her nose in when she was in the wrong!


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

cd365 said:


> I hope the police put her right and informed her that cyclists do not have to use a cycle path. I somehow doubt it.
> Nasty cyclist and innocent female car driver, who found it within her to poke her nose in when she was in the wrong!


Did you not read my post above?


----------



## winjim (1 May 2014)

I see the police are appealing for witnesses rather than relying on innuendo and conjecture.


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

winjim said:


> I see the police are appealing for witnesses rather than relying on innuendo and conjecture.


Which of course was my point.


----------



## winjim (1 May 2014)

screenman said:


> Which of course was my point.


Yes I gathered that you seemed to have more information about what _actually_ happened. My reply was to the thread in general, not to you specifically


----------



## Shut Up Legs (1 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Well, we've only got the driver's version, and she plainly doesn't know the Highway Code says faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane, and there are often good reasons for taking primary, and I for one would appreciate it if people didn't yell from cars as I'm cycling because I'm concentrating on staying alive.





Rob3rt said:


> Most people find this effortless, but the fact you do not is hardly surprising!


Cyclists react in various ways to aggression on the roads, so I think your generalisation is invalid.


----------



## glenn forger (1 May 2014)

What generalisation?


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

winjim said:


> Yes I gathered that you seemed to have more information about what _actually_ happened. My reply was to the thread in general, not to you specifically


I have the same information all the others on here have, I just did not leap on the same battle wagon. My story as it was is just as likely as any other.


----------



## winjim (1 May 2014)

screenman said:


> I have the same information all the others on here have, I just did not leap on the same battle wagon. My story as it was is just as likely as any other.


Sly...


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

User said:


> As likely or actual?


Whoosh! That was the noise that post made as it went over my head. Please explain for me.


----------



## screenman (1 May 2014)

User said:


> You stated that the cyclist was not in primary but riding down the white line. Likely or actual?


Not a clue as I have the same info all the others have.


----------



## Thomk (1 May 2014)

I wouldn't want a cyclist to throw a drink at me, it could give me a nasty bruise.


----------



## mr_cellophane (2 May 2014)

Now if it had been an egg he threw, the police wouldn't bother.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 May 2014)

Now, I'm a big bloke, but even I can't cause an obstruction riding my bike on a road - Most drivers indicate and overtake me.

I can't condone throwing a drink at the driver though....Although once I did 'drop' my bottle onto the bonnet of a car overtaking and driving oncoming towards me at 60......


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (2 May 2014)

It wasn't me!
LINK to local rag
"The rush hour clash, on the A316 towards Richmond on Thursday, March 13, was sparked when the 27-year-old female driver asked the cyclist why he was not using the cycle lane."

And then he threw a drink at her... just for just asking... really? - either she was just very unlucky and sparked up a polite conversation with a sociopath or there might have been a little more to the story than she's told the police - either way not defending the drink throwing but I doubt, as some one in the comment section has already mentioned, she politely inquired as to why he was not using the cycle lane - I'm also peed off by the police/piece referring to the cyclist as causing an obstruction.


----------



## fossyant (2 May 2014)




----------



## Markymark (2 May 2014)

Unless her actions physically threatened the cyclist or he was legitimately fearing for his safety by a verbal threat from her, nothing she could have said could justify assaulting her.

Luckily the police are looking for witnesses to assess if either of the first 2 options happened.


----------



## vickster (2 May 2014)

This one?

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-cyclist-was-causing-an-obstruction.155382/


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 May 2014)

Brandane said:


> Yes, so where does it say "faster cyclists should use the road rather than a cycle lane"?
> 
> You still haven't got the hang of this quoting stuff have you? You give your interpretation of something, and claim you are quoting. Time and time again.
> 
> The Highway Code could be interpreted differently by some, to mean: Inexperienced cyclists should stick to the road rather than try to negotiate the many obstructions on cycle lanes, such as broken glass, other debris, pedestrians, tree roots, dogs and their waste, parked vehicles, emerging vehicles, drain covers, pot-holes etc. etc..



You're quite correct, it is not in the Highway Code

It is (or was, I can only find a web archive of the document) in the Department for Transport 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling: Annex D

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

*"Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."*


----------



## PK99 (2 May 2014)

t


Sheffield_Tiger said:


> You're quite correct, it is not in the Highway Code
> 
> It is (or was, I can only find a web archive of the document) in the Department for Transport 2004 Local Transport Notes on Walking and Cycling: Annex D
> 
> ...




that was a cconsultation document not published guidance. the proposed guidance my or may not gave been deemed appropriate.

was it ever formally promulgated as official policy?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (2 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> What generalisation?


Sorry, I was replying to Robert, only putting your post in for context.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 May 2014)

PK99 said:


> t
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That'll explain the archiving, although the 18mph figure is oft-quoted and attributed to various sources. FWIW it would seem a very sensible guideline, a shared-use I use one way on my way to work for about 1/4 mile (because it's on a tram route on a slight uphill and it is convenient) is fine to use at a gentle pace, but cyclists coming downhill often use it far too fast - given there are lamp-posts and hedges I have had 2 near misses with downhill cyclists using the cycle path (as 30mph is an easy speed heading that way, no need to keep crossing tramlines, just stay primary and at the speed limit)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 May 2014)

If you are heading towards St Margarets on the so-called cycle path what do you do when it ends? Four lanes of traffic to cross iirc?

If heading towards Richmond the so-called cycle path has give way lines at junctions. Why? And wouldn't you have to dismount or wait for the crossing lights to cross the entrance to the swimming pool? Why?


----------



## jefmcg (2 May 2014)

If the driver spoke to the cyclist at traffic lights between twickenham bridge and Richmond circus, then it's at the Pools-on-the-Park/Scottish Rugby ground confluence, which LCC describes as The most dangerous cycle lane in Richmond


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 May 2014)

Wow! a cyclist threw a drink at some gob..... and the police appeal for witnesses to this "crime"!


----------



## Grendel (3 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Police are appealing for witnesses after a cyclist threw a drink at a driver and was abusive on Twickenham Bridge earlier this year.
> 
> The rush hour clash, on the A316 towards Richmond on Thursday, March 13, was sparked when the 27-year-old female driver asked the cyclist why he was not using the cycle lane.
> 
> ...



Have you tried writing to the paper and putting them right?


----------



## Grendel (3 May 2014)

screenman said:


> The cyclist was not riding primary he was riding down the middle white line, the drink he threw was in a 1/2 litre glass bottle. The driver concerned that the cyclist was drunk was just trying to help him ride in a suitable area when he became abusive.


Where does that come from? Neither riding on the white line, nor a glass bottle are mentioned in the report.


----------



## screenman (3 May 2014)

Grendel said:


> Where does that come from? Neither riding on the white line, nor a glass bottle are mentioned in the report.


You are correct, neither does it mention he was not. Which as many understood was the point of my story, too many cyclist jumping to unfounded conclusions.


----------



## glenn forger (3 May 2014)

Grendel said:


> Have you tried writing to the paper and putting them right?



No.


----------



## snorri (3 May 2014)

screenman said:


> too many cyclist jumping to unfounded conclusions.



Well, that's never happened on here before.

Edit Except on the falling lamp post video earlier this week..


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (3 May 2014)

PK99 said:


> the road in question has an excellent cycle path alongside
> 
> https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4588513,-0.3163791,91m/data=!3m1!1e3
> 
> plus can you point to the HWC section that says the bit i highlight?


As someone who cycles over Twickenham bridge often the facilities are not that good on either side. I made a video years ago about using the cycle path or the road a little further along between Chalkers corner and Richmond. Its here - aprox 2 miles on road takes you over 2 roundabouts and a set of lights, using the facilities takes you into the door zone, through narrow pavements shared with bus stops, over about 23 junctions where vehicles turning across you had priority and several driveways, you also have to dismount twice and push your bike - unsurprisingly it takes twice as long and is more dangerous.


----------



## Grendel (4 May 2014)

screenman said:


> You are correct, neither does it mention he was not. Which as many understood was the point of my story, too many cyclist jumping to unfounded conclusions.


I'd like to think I haven't, but the original article appeared to.

The problem with many newspapers is they print what they are told, without researching if it is factually correct.


----------



## the_mikey (4 May 2014)

Regardless of provision of a cycle lane or not, unless otherwise specified by a sign, the road is available to all traffic.


----------



## screenman (4 May 2014)

the_mikey said:


> Regardless of provision of a cycle lane or not, unless otherwise specified by a sign, the road is available to all traffic.


He was cycling down the middle of the road wobbling about and blocking traffic as he went, the motorist were concerned for his safety, nothing else.


----------



## Grendel (4 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> No.


Perhaps you should.


----------



## glenn forger (4 May 2014)

Grendel said:


> Perhaps you should.



can't. I'm banned.


----------



## screenman (4 May 2014)

User said:


> How do you know this?


Because I cannot find my half bottle of whisky and I know I had it when I come out of the pub.


Still the same as yesterday.


----------



## screenman (4 May 2014)

User said:


> Silly arse


Yep!


----------



## Grendel (4 May 2014)

glenn forger said:


> can't. I'm banned.


Where do you live? North Korea?


----------



## glenn forger (4 May 2014)

Oh, I thought you meant post comments beneath the story. I could write I suppose unless I forget or can't be bothered. It's totally rubbish reporting.


----------

