Coach driver tells cyclist with child he "shouldn't be on the path"... right under a shared use path sign

If cars need daylight running lights and they are <===this big====> why wouldn't a motorist need them to see something <©>?

' Aren't they supposed to be developing a River Tay long distance cycle / walking route? '

They have done. It goes all the way from that tree over there to this tree over here, but be careful, it gets a bit narrow...after all, we can't move the river can we!

Yes, but we can improve the surface of 'footpaths' (translate to Scottish parlance).

When I had a dig around it sounded a bit sustrans, complete with "light touch", limited surface work, and features at land ownership boundaries that sound like an obstacle course.

I would love to hear an on the ground report that this is not true.

wtjs wrote:

What I fail to comprehend is why so much time and space has been occupied with responding to the clearly sad nutter, sitting at home deriving pleasure at apparently riling cyclists while pretending to be 'a cyclist himself'.

You're right, of course, and I apologise for my part in it.

Anyway, Lancashire police...

It really is. I live in Perth and this was never designed as a shared path. It was an afterthought, a knee jerk quick fix when the council in their wisdom removed the cycle lanes on part of the street to make room for car parking spaces.  But at this part of the street the original cycle lanes are still there along with the shared space pavement. So whilst the cyclist is clearly in the right, the driver may have been confused as coaches have dropped off tourists at this spot for years in designated bus stops, and the original cycle lanes are still apparent and pass by the drivers side of the bus.

The whole area is in a poor state of repair. I tripped on a broken paving slab there just this morning. There is too much street clutter and the signage is poor and confusing for folk as pedestrians or on a bike. 
 

The real culprit here is the council and I've highlighted this to them this week as I've been banging on about it for years. Another irony is that they've installed loads of those bike racks shaped like cars to highlight how many bikes spaces a car takes up. They even installed one opposite this area! 

I had to rotate the image ! (I think is is some back end server issue)

Thanks.  You can clearly see the bike lane on the road but the pavement is still shared space.  It's a mess!

Soozip wrote:

...  You can clearly see the bike lane on the road ...

Nope, but I can see that some idiot councillor has had a line painted about 0.5M from the kerb though

Yelled at a few weeks back for "riding on a footpath" which was in fact a dedicated cycle path in Dulwich; when it was pointed out to the ranter that he was in fact standing on top of a 5x3 foot painted representation of a bicycle he looked nonplussed for a minute then claimed it meant no entry for bicycles.

Dulwich, this Saturday. I've been called a "disgusting person" just because I pointed out this is not "just a pavement" but a shared path.

Coincidence?

he was in fact standing on top of a 5x3 foot painted representation of a bicycle he looked nonplussed for a minute then claimed it meant no entry for bicycles

There have been a number of these anti-cyclist misrepresentations lately- we had that one where an adjacent shopkeeper accosted the cyclists locking bikes to something clearly designed for the purpose, and claimed that the picture of a bike meant not for bikes. Lancashire Constabulary thinks the 'advanced stop line' is the one right by the traffic light pole and anything in the HC referring to 'stop line' in connection with motorists really means the line further away from the lights- they cite the large picture of the cyclist in the box as 'evidence' for this view. The dodge here is that if the vehicle has crossed the true ASL when the lights turn red, it is legally entitled to continue across the true stop line. A minor point, but you'd think the police would be able to understand it.

I have a personal favourite from a while back: a taxi driver skinned me at a roadworks contraflow in central London where there was a "Narrow lanes do not pass cyclists" sign. When I took him to task for his behaviour he claimed that the sign was actually addressed to cyclists, i.e. it actually meant "Do not pass, cyclists".

Rendel Harris wrote:

I have a personal favourite from a while back: a taxi driver skinned me at a roadworks contraflow in central London where there was a "Narrow lanes do not pass cyclists" sign. When I took him to task for his behaviour he claimed that the sign was actually addressed to cyclists, i.e. it actually meant "Do not pass, cyclists".

Some people just love an opportunity to have a go at someone else, safe in the knowledge that they're probably not going to get much of a reaction back.

It's funny; I get far more of this nonsense when I'm out on my road bike wearing proper kit than I do when I'm riding a my pub bike wearing a hoodie.

I've had this experience - people taking umbrage and me pointing at the "shared use" sign ... but of course by that point it's too late, people are in fear / anger mode so it's not the time for reasoned discussion.

I don't agree with hearing laws (because deaf people).  I think it's very sensible to "encourage" this in all road users (e.g. as part of children's education).  When learning to drive I was schooled on winding down the window and listening for other cars when not clearly sighted at junctions / mist / fog.

Not sure if the makers of tech could be encouraged to take this into account too before we go full augmented reality and have to worry about people not seeing us again (unless we've installed an app...)?

It'll be a generation-time change but much better to start doing a sensible job of marking out separate pedestrian and cycle space and just reduce conflict.  In a very clear and UK standard way(!) so everyone can learn.  Then it's just about managing the junctions / conflict points.  Sensible solutions apply e.g. where there are very few pedestrians and not many cyclists (e.g. several miles between two places in the countryside) just build cycle tracks like the Dutch do.  That's one of the few circumstances when shared space can work well.

As someone who tries to keep up with Planning, I'd want more than that.

I'd want all new Housing Developments to be LTNs, and designed so that motor vehicles park off the much narrower roadway - preferably a la Netherlands in parking spaces fitted between trees. 

I'd also like some simplified rules for segregated cycleways - if there is no specification meeting physically segregated alternative to the road for both pedestrians and cyclist, then the default speed limit is 20mph inside community boundaries, and 40mph everywhere.

I have my tin whistle to hand for when there is some wind.