- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Shared used path in Perth (Scott via Twitter)Coach driver tells cyclist with child he "shouldn't be on the path"... right under a shared use path sign
A cyclist riding with his child in a child bike seat in Perth, Scotland has posted footage of a confrontation with a coach driver who tells him that he "should be on the road", despite a sign denoting that the path is shared use for cyclists and pedestrians shown just a few metres away from him.
Cyclists will never be safe. I was coming back from a Kidical (Play on Critical) Mass bike meeting in Perth, to support better local walking and cycling infrastructure. We had 2 close passes by 2 SUVs but on the way home, to be shouted at by a bus tour driver is unreal... pic.twitter.com/2U3QFC4skA
— Scott (@hamgammon) September 3, 2022
The cyclist, Scott, said that he was on his way back from a meeting to support better walking and cycling infrastructure, and was ironically close-passed by "2 SUVS" on the same journey that he was shouted at by the coach driver.
> Near Miss of the Day: Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt?
The coach is stopped and people are shown disembarking, and the cyclist can be heard talking to his child while ringing his bell. The driver can be heard saying "you shouldn't be on the path" and then adds "you should be on the road."
Scott replies: "Can you look at your sign and see that it's a shared cycle path? The sign is right next to your bus mate.
"...learn how the Highway Code works."
The clip led to a debate over the suitability of the shared use path and how to cycle around potentially vulnerable pedestrians, with elderly people shown disembarking from the coach.
Under the video, one person commented: "Not everyone will hear a bell (some people are deaf) Also just cos it’s a shared path doesn’t mean we get to carry on always. Pedestrians still have priority so in the situation in the vid you could argue that you should slow down even more, or even stop."
Scott added: "I had my feet of the pedals and ready to stop for people coming of the bus and not seeing me. I also even tried to ring my bell in a quiet way. These are the things I think about cycling that drivers just don't understand."
He also told road.cc that he continued on the journey after the confrontation with no further issues, saying that the path provides "a nice ride along the side of the Tay."
Back in 2016, an Edinburgh cyclist was threatened with a fine by police officers for riding on a shared use path. One of them allegedly told the cyclist he had committed a “ticketable offence", and a complaint was made to Police Scotland about the conduct of the officers.
On cycling on shared use paths and facilities, Rule 63 of the Highway Code states: "When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely."
road.cc has contacted the coach tour provider for comment.
Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
Latest Comments
- Bigfoz 1 hour 34 min ago
Partly it's the fetishization of pro cycling. Let's face it, RedBull don;t sell F1 cars, Ducati don't sell MotoGP bikes, Toyota don't sell WEC...
- Keesvant 2 hours 13 min ago
I do not believe that Cancellara used motor doping. Those small motors were just not developed by then....
- wtjs 3 hours 5 min ago
Fair enough:...
- SecretSam 4 hours 16 min ago
Usual ugly Pinarello, bumps and curves where they aren't needed. And, according to Mapdec, not well built.
- Rome73 6 hours 23 min ago
That's not strictly true - Reform will legalise immigrant baiting, trans bashing and tar and feathering of anyone woke. Loads of fun for all the...
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 10 min ago
What's a "legitimate cyclist" please? Someone who doesn't conform to your arbitrary norms? At the age of 56 I admit that you have 13 years more...
- mattw 20 hours 59 min ago
This risks turning me into a hanger and flogger....
- Spangly Shiny 1 day 2 hours ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
Add new comment
42 comments
Well I got shouted at today by another cyclist! They told me it's broad daylight and I didn't need flashing lights on.
I agree I shouldn't need lights in the day, but with the advent of DRL's on vehicles, you're now in the minority as a road user without them. So, not wishing to start a debate, I'm sticking with lights and I respect his choice not to use them.
He said this just as he plunged into a tunnel of trees, casting a shadow so dark it almost obscured a Land Rover!
If cars need daylight running lights and they are <===this big====> why wouldn't a motorist need them to see something <©>?
There's another thing niggling me.
I complained to my council that they had installed a shared use path (edit: corrected from auto-incorrected ashamed use path) where the only indication it was shared use was a painted arrow on the road.
Having complained vigorously about various inadequacies of its design, the Highways Department declared that the implementation was entirely legal.
Now I wouldn't trust SMBC Highways as far as I could throw one of their bent and battered Orcas, but the implication is that a shared use path is shared use by the council declaring it to be so, not because of any signage.
It's a weird one.
That road corridor is between 15m and 20m wide for nearly all of the way through Perth afaics from Google Maps.
That is ample room for 2-3 lanes, a 3-4m wide bidirectional cycle path, 2 x generous footways, and parking down one side of the road. Plus straight through the Inch by the river,
Are the Council as dim as they seem? Aren't they supposed to be developing a River Tay long distance cycle / walking route?
(No I don't have anything like that locally either, except for loads of former pit railways going to lots of places.)
' 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.
We could add, what sort of vile person expects a parent to risk their children on the road just to satisfy the offended sensibilities of an inattentive bus driver (proven by their failure to observe signs and driving while using a phone, albeit hands free, which is still a proven distraction).
I live in Perth. This was inevitable on this street because the real culprit here is the local council who, in their wisdom, removed the cycle lanes from part of this street to make room for car parking spaces. So a quick fix was to make the pavement shared space even though it is entirely unsuitable as it is poorly maintained, has loads of street clutter with confusing signs.
However the problem is compounded because at the part of the street where this altercation took place, the original bike lanes (on the road) remain in place along with the shared space pavement. See photo below. You can clearly see the bike lanes still in situ on the outside of the bus stop and then the very small shared space sign. It really could be held up as an exemplar of how NOT to design something. I've been banging on about it for years and have highlighted this incident to local councillors in the hope that they make appropriate, clear changes.
The bloke cycling is absolutely in the right but the shared space sign is quite small and, because these tour buses have stopped at this point for years, using designated stopping areas, the driver may have been confused because the original cycle lanes, that pass by the drivers' side, remain in place. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that the coach driver saw the original bike lanes and wondered why the chap was cycling on a pavement not fit for the purpose.
A further sweet irony is the council installing loads of bike parks shaped like a car to try to persuade more folk to cycle. One used to be only a few metres from this street, outside the Council offices before it was relocated elsewhere.
Jeez people, I thought you knew better - never wrestle a pig.
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's stating the obvious I know, but this really is a poor shared path, and consequently a poor place to drop off.
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!
Nope, but I can see that some idiot councillor has had a line painted about 0.5M from the kerb though
The bus driver is wearing a Bluetooth headset so presumably in between ranting at cyclists over safety on paths he's busy making / receiving phone calls whilst driving a bus load of passengers.
I recently got shouted at for passing a woman walking her dog saying I shouldn't be cycling on the pavement.
This 'path' was the Beryl Burton Cycleway through Harrogate. Christ its even named after a cyclist and is covered in cycling signs all over yet some people just hate it no matter where we go.
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".
I have a shared cycle path near me - ride on it and invariably there's at least one sourpuss who glowers at you and tells you you should be on the road, no matter how sensibly you may be riding along. Ride on the adjacent road instead of the path and...well, you know the rest.
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.
https://twitter.com/hamgammon/status/1566425752526094337
Could be used as a training video for how to sensibly and courteously ride on shared pavements, I honestly can't imagine how the guy could have done it better.
Comes as no surprise as I frequently get glared at or comments fired at me while riding on designated cyclepath/shared use pavements despite clear signage stating "share with care".
Now I don't have a bell because basically no one hears bells anyway so I call out a polite "excuse me" as I approach and a cheery "thank you" as I pass but still get shouts of "get on the road" from ignorant pedestrians.
Perhaps we need a law preventing pedestrians from wearing earpods so they can actually hear us coming when we are on shared use paths.
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.
Pages