'Road rage' van driver [Adrian Burrows] punched cyclist in the face for not using a bike path

[blackrat]

Yeah well said guidelines need a rethink.

Absolutely. The law is an ass!

 

[hobo]

The difference of attitude to cyclists here is that it’s never been adopted as a form of transport.
It’s seen either as kids on bikes as a plaything or a hobby of Lyra riders which are getting in the way of me driving my beloved car, how dare they!
It’s not helped by cycling targeted as a pro sport instead of a way of transport.
In the days gone by many people used a bike for work and to get around so these were common on the roads, now people want a car straight away and so cycling is seen as it is.

 

[lazybloke]

The difference of attitude to cyclists here is that it’s never been adopted as a form of transport.
It’s seen either as kids on bikes as a plaything or a hobby of Lyra riders which are getting in the way of me driving my beloved car, how dare they!
It’s not helped by cycling targeted as a pro sport instead of a way of transport.
In the days gone by many people used a bike for work and to get around so these were common on the roads, now people want a car straight away and so cycling is seen as it is.

Yeah that's probably most of the problem, although a pedestrian holding up a car will also make drivers 'a bit cross'. Cyclists aren't the only target.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Yeah that's probably most of the problem, although a pedestrian holding up a car will also make drivers 'a bit cross'. Cyclists aren't the only target.

true
a car holding up a car causes enough anger!

 

[mjr]

Evidence for that?

I rode in both within a couple of weeks and that was what I experienced. I think it may even have been before I had a handlebar camera at home in the UK, let alone taken one away with me on a non-cycling trip!

 

[mjr]

Which you didn't answer.

I did answer. You just don't seem to agree that reporting that the only punishment for assaulting a cyclist after a "disagreement with the cyclist over the laws of the road for cyclists and where they should be positioned on the road" is some unpaid work and the cost of repairing the bike, and no penalty fine or compensation for the injuries, with no attempt to explain that the disagreement seems to have been completely unsupported by the law or highway code, and no driving sanction (whether due to prosecutors not even charging a driving offence, or to the judge not using whatever replaced the old section 146 driving bans allowed for any relevant Crown Court offence) sends a message that the assault wasn't punished seriously. Just don't break their bike when you hit them(!)

I don't disagree that it looks like it was a valid outcome within the sentencing guidelines, or that the reporting maybe doesn't often point out when the mitigation is full of shoot, but that doesn't matter: it still sends a message that this is not seen as a serious offence.

 

[Alex321]

I don't disagree that it looks like it was a valid outcome within the sentencing guidelines, or that the reporting maybe doesn't often point out when the mitigation is full of shoot, but that doesn't matter: it still sends a message that this is not seen as a serious offence.

Assault causing ABH is generally not seen as a particularly serious offence, which is why the guidelines are so low.

I don't think this case sends out any message that isn't sent out by the many other cases of assault causing ABH.

 

[Bristolian]

The difference of attitude to cyclists here is that it’s never been adopted as a form of transport.
--- snipped ---

Take a look at photos or video from between the wars of workers streaming out of factories and other places of work and you'll see bikes by the thousand being used as "a form of transport". Indeed, until the advent of affordable motoring the bicycle was the main form of transport for the working man and woman. In this respect, the bicycle suffered the same fate as the railways; motor cars were more convenient.

I well remember racing many of the workers leaving Rolls Royce in Filton (cycling to places like Winterbourne, Frampton Cotterell and Iron Acton) in the late 1960's. One of my training rides used to take me past the factory just as the day shift finished a couple of time each week. Great fun

 

[mjr]

. In this respect, the bicycle suffered the same fate as the railways; motor cars were more convenient.

If they're so convenient, why did the richest keep paying others to drive for them and care for their cars? No, what cars were was better marketed than trains or bikes, with lots of private interests profitting from selling an illusory myth of freedom of the open road and governments not all that keen on running transport services, whose ministers often wouldn't mind if the hoi polloi had to do hours more unpaid work driving themselves, in a little compartment, unable to talk with other travellers and maybe plot rebellion, and not getting any fitter. It's a trap! And people still fall for it, thinking cars more convenient and ignoring all the time and money they suck.

 

[Jotheboat]

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.

Of course they are, but my question was really one of a discretionary nature. For example, there's a 2-lane road near me with a 50 MPH limit, a prime access to a motorway route. Anyone going less than 55 in a car gets a hurry-up. The stretch is just less than a mile long and it's busy just about all day.
Next to the road is a joint cycleway / footpath which I ALWAYS use when going that way, simply because it increases my chances of seeing tomorrow's sunrise. Mine's an e-MTB by the way, so 15 mph or so on the flat.
I drive a car and hate it. I ride my bike and hate riding on the roads, so for me, I like cycle lanes and use them.

 

[BoldonLad]

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

This is a key point (IMHO).

During Covid Lockdown, our local authority actually made an effort to introduce "new" cycle routes (mostly making use of existing paved areas). Most of them are still awaiting signage, several years later) to indicate where the cycling routing begins of ends. I dont have any documentary evidence for this, but, I doubt the Local Authority and/or Police have any idea which areas are designated as cycle route, shared route, etc

 

[Alex321]

If they're so convenient, why did the richest keep paying others to drive for them and care for their cars?

Because that was much more convenient for them than using public transport.

It is undeniable that cars are more convenient than public transport, particularly for those living outside main town/city centres.

That is partly because public transpirt is crap, but even with much better public transport, cars are still more comvemnient for most.

No, what cars were was better marketed than trains or bikes, with lots of private interests profitting from selling an illusory myth of freedom of the open road

That may be an illusory myth nowadays, but it certainly wasn't i the days when cars were becoming most established and commonplace.

And even today, it can still be true if you are not in a hurry, there are plenty of reasonably quiet roads away from the main through routes.

and governments not all that keen on running transport services, whose ministers often wouldn't mind if the hoi polloi had to do hours more unpaid work driving themselves, in a little compartment, unable to talk with other travellers and maybe plot rebellion, and not getting any fitter. It's a trap! And people still fall for it, thinking cars more convenient and ignoring all the time and money they suck.

It is certainly true that governments much prefer their citizens to deal with moving themselves around, rather than providing services for them.

But with the actual current state of public transport, cars are absolutely more convenient for a large majority of people.

 

[Jameshow]

Because that was much more convenient for them than using public transport.

It is undeniable that cars are more convenient than public transport, particularly for those living outside main town/city centres.

That is partly because public transpirt is crap, but even with much better public transport, cars are still more comvemnient for most.




That may be an illusory myth nowadays, but it certainly wasn't i the days when cars were becoming most established and commonplace.

And even today, it can still be true if you are not in a hurry, there are plenty of reasonably quiet roads away from the main through routes.


It is certainly true that governments much prefer their citizens to deal with moving themselves around, rather than providing services for them.

But with the actual current state of public transport, cars are absolutely more convenient for a large majority of people.

I think the big cities have taken the lion share of public transport funding leaving smaller cities and town to struggle with poor public transport.

Trams, Good buses, good railway connections all get people out of cars onto public transport. But the smaller cities that's just not happening. The car is seem as a status symbol of wealth (or I'm not on carp public transport)...

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Of course they are, but my question was really one of a discretionary nature. For example, there's a 2-lane road near me with a 50 MPH limit, a prime access to a motorway route. Anyone going less than 55 in a car gets a hurry-up. The stretch is just less than a mile long and it's busy just about all day.
Next to the road is a joint cycleway / footpath which I ALWAYS use when going that way, simply because it increases my chances of seeing tomorrow's sunrise. Mine's an e-MTB by the way, so 15 mph or so on the flat.
I drive a car and hate it. I ride my bike and hate riding on the roads, so for me, I like cycle lanes and use them.

Sure, make your own choices for the circumstances.

Still ENIRELY* irrelevant to the assault, and no idea why you're bringing it up.

*seeing as we now seem to be at the all caps point in the thread.

 

[mjr]

I dont have any documentary evidence for this, but, I doubt the Local Authority and/or Police have any idea which areas are designated as cycle route, shared route, etc

We have documentary evidence for West Norfolk because the county council published a map. It showed cancelled projects as if they had been built and didn't show some things actually built. http://www.klwnbug.co.uk/2018/07/05/kings-lynns-imaginary-cycling-network/

I remember that Cambridgeshire police seemed not to know for sure what was a cycleway in the Huntingdon cyclist killing and the council said that signs which I have seen and which have been on TV were never there. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66384645