If there was any point in reporting him for his behaviour (to whom?) , then it might have saved another cyclist from this bully. But, we should be able to ride without having to make reports of irresponsible acts against us. For some reason we are often targets for dangerous confrontations and it shouldn't have to be this way. However, we should be thankful these incidents seem to be few and far between.
'Road rage' van driver [Adrian Burrows] punched cyclist in the face for not using a bike path
- Thread starter wiggydiggy
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
If there was any point in reporting him for his behaviour (to whom?) , then it might have saved another cyclist from this bully. But, we should be able to ride without having to make reports of irresponsible acts against us. For some reason we are often targets for dangerous confrontations and it shouldn't have to be this way. However, we should be thankful these incidents seem to be few and far between.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
they rarely do report any arguments made against the mitigation claims. Whether or not such arguments were made.
150 hours is right at the top of the scale if the harm level was 3, or the bottom if it was considered to be level 2. But certainly within the guidelines either way.
No driving offence was charged, so that is not within the power of the magistrate. The offence charged was Assault causing Actual Bodily Harm.
And the sentencing guidelines for that offence appear to have been followed.
Jotheboat
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Littleborough, Lancashire
Was it ever explained why he wasn't using the cycle path?
Use them or lose them?
Use them or lose them?
The original post link no longer work, so here it is again.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/road-rage-van-driver-punched-31479188
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/road-rage-van-driver-punched-31479188
Most paths that I (deliberately) pass are simply not fit for purpose, which is why I don't use them.
Quite happy to lose them.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
Better if the problem were fixed
There are a few around here that I don;t use because
a) they go through an Industrial Estate and the gates to the units involve a sharp bump - and I have had most of my punctures from slivers of metal along there
b) they go along housing areas and they expect you to stop to cross a road at intersections all the way along
i.e. just bad design/construction making it too troublesome to use
none of these would be clear to a driver unless they also cycle a lot
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
There is no requirement to use cycle paths, and for many cyclists, a lot of paths are simply unsuitable.
And what the highay code says (my bold) is:
Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Cycle lanes are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). Use facilities such as cycle lanes and tracks, advanced stop lines and toucan crossings (see Rules 62 and 73) where they make your journey safer and easier. This will depend on your experience and skills and the situation at the time. While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them.
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
They are very variable, and rather dependent on where you live as to quality. I don't think a blanket "I can't stand cycle paths" is reasonable.
Here in South Wales, there are a number of very good ones, and also some poor ones.
ebikeerwidnes
Guru
- Location
- Z’ha’dum
I agree
There are a lot of good ones around here some not so good
main problem is often simply the start and end of them - sometimes you have no clue whether it is still a cycle path or not!
but when new roads are built and major upgrades done - then they do seem to try to put a decent one in if possible
T4tomo
Legendary Member
Yes if purpose built or part of major works then the planners on the whole do a decent job*. Where they try to squeeze in a bit of cycle path into the existing town centre roads, then it is invariable crap or suitable only for very slow progress for people who really don't want to mix with the traffic.
*that said, Dacorum are building a Dutch roundabout in the middle of an industrial estate in Hemel. Its a route that get well used on a weekend, but then the traffic is very very light so seems like overkill. On a weekday I'm not sure there is a big demand for people cycle commuting to their warehouse jobs. There are a lot of new houses going in just up the road, so I can only assume as part of planning permission the developers had to commit £xx thousands into local cycling infrastructure.
markemark
Veteran
There’s definitely a mixed bag but there’s at least 50% that are sub optimal ranging from not very good to dangerous and awful. The problem this leads to is the issue in the OP. Because they are everywhere and a large enough percentage are poor then it seems to make drivers very cross when they’re not being used to the point of assault. On balance, I’d rather not have any.
matticus
Guru
Perhaps he's just superstitious?
roubaixtuesday
self serving virtue signaller
It's completely irrelevant. Cyclists are entitled to use the road if they choose.
Most cycle paths I see are both inconvenient and actively dangerous to use. If such facilities were built for motorists, nobody would drive on them.
This is a derisory penalty for offence of assault, criminal damage and dangerous driving. Shows how ridiculous some of the legal system is when others get jailed for posting offensive stuff on internet!
Note I'm definitely not condoning either but hardly sends out a message does it.
