Driver view of Jason MacIntyre's fatal accident.

[spindrift]

What is implicit in what the driver is reported as saying is that he doesn't believe that there's a general responsibility to be aware of anything other than motor vehicles on the carriageway.

Indeed.

 

[tdr1nka]

What is most sad in the interview is the tone of blame deflection and a limp *possible* reason why it was not the his/drivers fault.
If he made any statement it should only have been his condolences to the family of the deceased and not some flimsy thoughts that should be addressed in an enquiry.

I am equally convinced that had this not been a 'name' athlete the story would have had little or no coverage.

On the London South Circular eastbound in Dulwich there is a ped/bike path, it is just a wide and poorly maintained ashphalt pavement that crosses the drives of some very big houses with Chelsea Tractors on nearly every one.

I would never use this facility for the obvious reasons so I stick to the road and p*ss off a lot of drivers by being there. The only thought and money that went into this facility were the round blue designaition signs on lamposts every 20yds.

Tx

 

[spindrift]

Responding to the devil's advocate, paul...

If jason was on the road, as i suspect, the driver was at fault.

 

[Arch]

I am equally convinced that had this not been a 'name' athlete the story would have had little or no coverage.

Yes, I'm afraid I agree with you there...

 

[Pete]

Where a cycle path crosses a driveway (as opposed to a road) then the cyclist has priority, just as pedestrians do when footpaths cross driveways, irrespective of what a council twat has painted on the tarmac. This is clear from Rule 206 of the Highway Code which says:

"Drive carefully and slowly when... needing to cross a pavement or cycle track; for example, to reach or leave a driveway. Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement."

If this is true, contrary to all the evidence of the painted markings, would you, would anyone else, rely on your 'rights'? Certainly I would not. I have clear evidence with my own eyes that 'give way' markings (a triangle and double broken lines) have been painted across the cycle path at the intersections. I believe Nuttycyclist has photos of the actual stretch to which I refer (near Hassocks), but I'm sure there are many other examples.

The problem is, you may believe what the law says, I may believe it, but can you trust the motorist to be in the know? Especially when he has seen the markings with his own eyes and takes them at face value?

Another point is that councils are very fond of 'ending' a cycle track at a critical point and then re-starting it a few yards later. Hence the bit that actually crosses the driveway may not be an official cycle track and so no priority rules apply. This does not appear to be so in the case I refer to, seeing as there are no "CYCLE TRACK - END" signs. But there are many examples elsewhere.

Perhaps this should be taken up with the authority in question.

 

[Tony]

There is a very similar farcility from Richmond Park towards Barnes.

 

[Pete]

I think I know the one you mean, Tony. Priory Lane going north from Roehampton Gate, am I right? I have gone along that way several times, as part of my Friday afternoon pootle by way of precursor to CM. The cycle path is different from my example above: the Richmond one is just a shared-use pavement with a dividing line IIRC. Or is there a kerb between the two 'halves'? The Hassocks one is fully segregated with a grass verge in between. Anyway, I simply ignored it.

 

[CotterPin]

I wouldn't rely on my priority if my life was at risk - I'm not that stupid!

However, I would contact (and have contacted) the relevant authority to point out that they've got it wrong. I have had success in getting them to change markings.

Many of the people who authorise or direct the marking of cyclepaths have never read or understood the legislation and best practise guidance.

Or even the Highway Code.

 

[wafflycat]

I left a meeting early this morning. I made polite excuses and left. Someone at the meeting said 'it's his own fault. If he hadn't of been on the road, he'd be alive. Cyclists should be banned from roads.' This pearl of objective wisdom came from someone who thinks of himself as a cyclist. I told him he was wrong. He went on and on about how any cyclist on an 'A' road is 'asking for it'. Tw@t. But rather than describe said person thus as he was an elderly person and as this was in a church, I made polite excuses about having to be elsewhere and left.

 

[andy_wrx]

There are quite a few cyclepaths in South Manchester and Altrincham where someone at the council has has the bright idea of making the pavement into a half-and-half footpath-cum-cyclepath, separated with a painted solid white line and with bicycle symbols on the half you're supposed to ride on.

This is bloody stupid because
- the footpath is potholed and rutted wherever the gas or water board have dug it up
- there are a considerable number of lampposts, roadsigns, bollards to stop people parking on the pavement, etc which presumably you're supposed to slalom around
- the cyclists have the 'outside' half nearest to the road, which of course is where bus shelters and the like are...
- ...so every time there is one, there's a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign and the cyclepath finishes, starts again just after the obstacle
- and every time you come to a sideroad, entrance to petrol station, driveway, etc - i.e. every 50-to100-yds or so - there's giveway lines painted on the cyclepath and a 'Cyclist Dismount' sign

I'd assumed the 'Cyclist Dismount' signs were just someone at the council on Health & Safety overload, but presumably if you were cycling along this pavement-cum-cycletrack and were in collision with a vehicle driving into/out of a sideroad across it, it would be the cyclist's fault, not having dismounted and given way...

 

[Arch]

Those paths that give way a lot, there's a picture here: Look under September 2007.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

 

[Fab Foodie]

Those paths that give way a lot, there's a picture here: Look under September 2007.

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

It's really unbeleivable that somebody could:
a) Design such an abortion
Approve and get a budget for such an abortion
c) Get it made without somebody putting the brakes on
d) Remain employed in any capacity other than shelf-stacking.

I'd love to have the sign making contract. That's unbelievable.

 

[Chuffy]

It's really unbeleivable that somebody could:
a) Design such an abortion
Approve and get a budget for such an abortion
c) Get it made without somebody putting the brakes on
d) Remain employed in any capacity other than shelf-stacking.

I'd love to have the sign making contract. That's unbelievable.

Don't quote me but I'd bet that there is a pretty prescriptive set of rules that must be followed when setting out a facility, much like the ones that dictate the whys and wherefores of speed sign/camera placement. The kind of rules that allow stupid bastards to get away with speeding if Rule 6 para3 hasn't been followed to the letter.
Of course if summat bad happens and someone can demonstrate that you haven't complied with the rules....

 

[andygates]

Which is why such a facility is such a mess. Nobody with an overview said "hang on, this is bollocks, let's cancel it." I swear, non-cyclists look at facilities like these and think we're a bunh of idiots for wanting them. If we did, we would be.

 

[LLB]

Cheltenham has off-road cycle paths on mostof its main inter-city roads. On some of them, where side roads join, users on those roads are supposed to give way to the cyclists.

It's a fine idea. The problem is though that these schemes are so few and far between that a lot of drivers won't realise what they are supposed to do, and so don't stop.

Cheltenham is a spa town, not a city MrP. The ones on Princess Elizabeth Way which you refer to are what convinced me that cycle lanes like this do more harm than good for cyclists as a whole. As a roadie, they are far too lumpy to be used by a road cycle, and the risk that a car will drive straight across them means that you don't have unimpeded progress when using them. so they considerably slow you down. Fine for parents and kids on bikes with stabilisers, but it sends the message that cyclists don't have a rightful place on the roads and it sends a message that pavement cycling is acceptable.