"I despair of humans sometimes": Anger over "dangerous and damaging" New Forest mountain bike trails; School of Rock star Kevin Clark dies in collision with driver; Remco abandons Giro; Cyclists dismount; LEJOG record attempt + more on the live blog

Yup.  It is a classic example of how it would have been better to have just not bothered.

The traffic lane is pretty narrow - if you ride outside the cycle lane you get "Gerrinnafukkincyclelane!" and if you ride in it...

As you can see, you have to swerve out of it even to avoid door mirrors on vans!

Perhaps it was Jeremy Vine - he likes to go the wrong way !

I was going to point out similar along this road here when I noticed a minor RTA captured on Google steet cam as well. 

And as we are talking about ROad signs and I have since found out about the supposed provisions or cyclists, I know Birmingham don't bother as they Road works a bit further up is now continued all the way past the lights and onto the area the cycle lane reappears. The road works have narrows the lane that cars cannot go down it without egressing onto the cycle lane. Yet not one sign to mention don't overtake cyclists or be careful around them. I have since found and alternative route. 

wtjs wrote:

Previously, I urged that a couple of morons on here should be ignored. Both of those account names disappeared, although it could be that one of them at least has returned under a different guise. This one names himself after a nutter politician which is, I suppose, a form of honesty- however, this is not enough of a defence! 

John Stevenson wrote:

What tends to happen is that trolls like them get increasingly unpleasant to have around until they come to the attention of The Management, at which point they're dealt with.

That'll happen with this one when he crosses the line.

Having just torn into one of his posts below, I find myself in the position of defending our Nige. People can disagree (vehemently and even disrespectfully) without being trolls. Nige is not Socrati, as evinced by the conviction of his opinions, even when they at the opposite end of the spectrum to my own, which is not 100% of the time. Personally, I'd sooner not have this site become more of an echo chamber than it is - if it does, I might have to start proper trolling myself. Beware!

I find myself in the position of defending our Nige

We're agreeing to disagree, then.

wtjs wrote:

I find myself in the position of defending our Nige

We're agreeing to disagree, then.

Or are we disagreeing to agree? no hang on, I want to make sure we get this right....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So, "Fully vaccinated" Cycling Mikey (EU flag), seems to think some signs should apply to traffic, and others not. Coming from the man who sneaks around pretending to be a unpaid policeman you'd think he'd know better - but apparently not.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So, "Fully vaccinated" Cycling Mikey (EU flag), seems to think some signs should apply to traffic, and others not. Has a working knowledge of what constitutes a legal road sign, and what non-enforceable signs are contrary to DfT guidance. Coming from the man who sneaks around pretending to be a unpaid policeman you'd think he'd know better he clearly has his facts righ- but apparently not.

Fixed that for you

Show me where Mr Loophole has used abusing logical, advisory signposts to get drivers off the hook then and we will see if there is difference.

And if he was pretending to be a Policeman, surely he would have been arrested for it by now?

Ones who can see it is clear of any peds and cannot understand why a totally out of place sign is there. If the offending video had showed the lane crowded with pedestrians and cyclists were travelling that fast I would defintitely be more on your side there. 

What Ms London should have picked up on (and inadvertantly has whilst only blaming cyclists) was the general shoddiness of the provision for all the road users in that section. A "Cyclists Priority to Pedestrians" sign or a diversion of the cyclists into the main carriageway with a "do not overtake cyclists" sign are both the recommended options for what have happened here and would have meant no specific road user was inconvenienced more  then needed or put into more danger. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I'm glad at least we all agree he sneaks around pretending to be an unpaid policeman at least 

As a matter of fact, he is always really clear he is not the police, although the police do seem to appreciate his assistance

I wonder whether you think that every witness, ...what was it? Ah yes..... "sneaks around pretending to be an unpaid policeman" or just this particular one....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's also surprising to see you all taking a leaf out of Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman's book of abusing logical, advisory signposts to wriggle out of personal responsibility.

You said it..... no need for loopholes, or talk about responsibility. Advisory

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Of course, the police can still view this reckless, dangerous disregard for personal and others' safety by viewing it as what it is: anti-social behaviour.

Oh my god..... over-egging the situation a little? You aren't the OP, are you?

So, if you see a crime happening, endangering other cyclists, you're just going to walk by? 

And it's rather illogical to label legally ignoring invalid signage as "anti-social behaviour", while dissing someone who takes a legal form of action, with the support of the police, against extremely anti-social, dangerous and illegal behaviour.

But then I guess you share that with your "nom-de-plum" sake.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 

He isn't "walking by" though is he? That's the whole point.

Yeah, that's kind of the point with witnesses, and good citizens. They don't just walk on by.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

He's sneaking around, hiding in bushes, or leering at drivers through their windows when they are stationary

Gor blimey, woss it camin to when a good old honest to goodness dangerous driver can't do ver wotsappin' when ver be'ind va wheel, eh? Facking lefties....

Nigel Garrage wrote:

- he's the cycling equivalent of a badly motivated traffic warden.

Yes, badly motivated - by the fact a driver killed his dad...

Anyway, that motivation's paying off looking at his stats.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If he was recording dangerous incidents or doing something that was actually valuable and in the public interest I'd be all for it.

No you wouldn't. Because he does. And you aren't.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Also, when he jumps out or sneaks up on people, he always ignores the dozens of cyclists performing the same illegal manoevres - why?

Can you point that video out please. I did see the one where he shouted after a rider on Gandalf corner though

Nigel Garrage wrote:

On the signage, you have to understand the way society works and damage it does to all cyclists' reputations when things are ignored like this.

Doesn't damage my reputation, and as you yourself pointed out, it's advisory. And advice may be ignored.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It is precisely this kind of flouting of societal norms ...

Societal norms?? Now you really have got me. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

that gives succour to those who want cyclists to have ID plates and other onerous regulations enforced on them.

You mean North Korea? Even they can't make that one work, I don't think we have much to fear there.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's "nom de plume" by the way, should probably have stuck to German, lol.

Hmmm, d'y' know, I rather like Kraut's way of spelling it ...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 

....

Aha, you are joking right? Just a quick browse of his "most popular" video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMckoqLbCs8 shows 3 cyclists doing the exact same manoevre as the car within the first 90 seconds of footage - many more by the end!

I counted about 4 or 5 before I got bored about halfway through, so not dozens. As I said, please direct me to that video that you mentioned that shows dozens

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 

Did your hero stop them too? No! Of course not, he was too busy revelling in the limelight. Taxi driver got his number though.

Why should he? if you care so much, you go and stop them, and I'll even congratulate you. Or perhaps I'll start ranting that you aren't doing the same to peds, or start some other whataboutery...

Dude, if you've been caught on your phone, you'll get phuck all sympathy here

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So tell me, how did doing all that improve the relationship between cyclists and the rest of society?

It hasn't made one iota of difference. No one cares, except the ones that have been caught, or are going to get caught.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

How did it make my bike ride today safer for me? The answer is - it didn't! It made it more dangerous.

Evidence please

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Take the number plate and report it to police instead of grandstanding and fishing for YouTube hits!

Don't tell I, tell 'e. But I'd sooner it's publicised.

Really dude, he's triggered you so much I can only assume that you've been caught yourself.

Raspberries

Nigel Garrage wrote:

On the signage, you have to understand the way society works and damage it does to all cyclists' reputations when things are ignored like this. 

So can I get some red signs like this made up instructing people to do all sorts of things and then complain when they are ignored, or is it just the dubious 'cyclists dismount' instruction that can be thrown up without consideration of whether it is required or whether an alternative is possible?

The issue with "Cylcists dismount" signs is nothing to do with loopholes, and everything to do with their being no more meaningful than any other sign that people with no legal authority - e.g. you or I - could go round putting up anywhere they feel like.

I could put up a sign in the main road outside my house tomorrow saying "No entrance to motor vehicles". Drivers who ignored it wouldn't be exploiting a "loophole", they would just know that it had no significance beyond expressing someone's opinion.

The last sign you commented on you didn't understand either.

brooksby wrote:

I thought that "Ms Farah London" was being sarcastic, then read the rest of the story and realised that they were being serious... 

Very stupid person who put that signage up - what is it supposed to achieve?  I presume that they are diverting pedestrians around the blocked footpath onto the cycle path and then want cyclists to not use the cycle path so they don't come into conflict with the pedestrians??

No - I dont think they are directing the peds onto it, there would be another sign? And as I said in my post above, pretty sure there's no dismount sign the other direction (I'll check on the way home)

brooksby wrote:

Very stupid person who put that signage up - what is it supposed to achieve?  I presume that they are diverting pedestrians around the blocked footpath onto the cycle path and then want cyclists to not use the cycle path so they don't come into conflict with the pedestrians??

If that is the intention, then surely a different sign would make more sense, like "Pedestrians on bike lane - cyclists take care" or something similar that actually explains the risks.

I often find signs in the UK really not helpful, because they just tell you to do something without explanation why. Like all the big "SLOW" signs painted on the roads - either it is very very obvious why they are there (because of a narrow bend in the road or a school or something similar) in which case they are not needed and any competent driver would notice the risk itself, or the the risk is not at all obvious, in which case a "SLOW" doesn't help me much because I don't know what I'm supposed to look out for. Especially as many signs just seem to be put up (like the "cyclists dismount" sign) for no particular reason as an H&S checkbox exercise without real specific risk assessment.

Stephan Matthiesen wrote:

I often find signs in the UK really not helpful, because they just tell you to do something without explanation why. Like all the big "SLOW" signs painted on the roads - either it is very very obvious why they are there (because of a narrow bend in the road or a school or something similar) in which case they are not needed and any competent driver would notice the risk itself, or the the risk is not at all obvious, in which case a "SLOW" doesn't help me much because I don't know what I'm supposed to look out for.

I can see where you're coming from. However, you seem to be making the assumption that drivers are competent and would respond to the "obvious" hazard in an appropriate manner...

Whoever the contractor is they have done a right half arsed job. If they are blocking the pavement and saying pedestrians are supposed to go into the cycle lane, they should have temp drop kerbs and barriers stopping the bikes from entering. They should then divert the cycle lane users onto the roads with warning signs to motorists about cyclists having priority. 

Still Ms London who got about as many votes as The Gammon in the London Elections (11k although her website is claiming 55k) has decided this is the route she wants to go down to still have a "face" in Politics. I expect she will hang around like a bad smell and be a talking head on news soon.