Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

custardy

sam1970 wrote: »

Obviously you cant argue your case as a mature adult and you try to insult others to cover your weaknesses...the op said he cycles to uni and he never said that he pays road tax on a vehicle he owns..I am out of this discussion and I will continue to park where I like as long as I am not breaking any law

except in your own words,you were replying to me

rev_henry

sam1970 wrote: »

Obviously you cant argue your case as a mature adult and you try to insult others to cover your weaknesses...the op said he cycles to uni and he never said that he pays road tax on a vehicle he owns..I am out of this discussion and I will continue to park where I like as long as I am not breaking any law

Well I'm saying it now, I have a car as well. And I almost always only put pictures up of cars parked actually illegally. Now please stop turning this into the usual cycling mud slinging.

sequence

Parking in cycle lanes should be flat illegal. The penalty should be the offending car is crushed

Lum

Bowling_4_Gold wrote: »

Annoys me too!

Interesting one that one.

That's not a cycle lane all the way down that side of the road, it only starts at the point where the Range Rover's front bumper ends and exists to let cyclists pass through the chicane without being slowed down by it.

It's also not a junction, the give way line there, again, refers to the chicane. Since it's not a junction you can't criticise the Range Rover driver for parking within 15 feet of a junction either.

There is a driveway in the shot, possibly with a dropped curb, but it looks like the Range Rover is clear of that too.

There are no yellow lines.

I think that one may actually be parked legally, though I'd love to be proven wrong.

rev_henry

Lum wrote: »

Interesting one that one.

That's not a cycle lane all the way down that side of the road, it only starts at the point where the Range Rover's front bumper ends and exists to let cyclists pass through the chicane without being slowed down by it.

It's also not a junction, the give way line there, again, refers to the chicane. Since it's not a junction you can't criticise the Range Rover driver for parking within 15 feet of a junction either.

There is a driveway in the shot, possibly with a dropped curb, but it looks like the Range Rover is clear of that too.

There are no yellow lines.

I think that one may actually be parked legally, though I'd love to be proven wrong.

I think you're right, unless that is a junction I can see in the far left? Its still very inconsiderate though. And that's a Freelander not a range rover!

Lum

It's not ideal no, but we don't know what the parking conditions are on that street since that photo was taken during the day. Maybe by night time it's completely full of bumper to bumper cars?

I'll tell you what is inconsiderate though, building one of those awful chicanes. There's much better ways to slow traffic down, ones that don't cause congestion, and cause people to waste fuel and emit more pollutants into a residential area.

As for the Freelander, I'll take your word for it on that. Unless its a proper 4x4 like a Defender or a Samurai or something, and/or are caked in mud and have offroad tyres, they're all Chelsea tractors to me.

As for that other junction, it's quite hard to tell, though that looks to be a single dashed line, like you'd expect for parking bays, not double like you'd expect for a give way. It's also probably more than 15 feet away.

SimonLondon

sam1970 wrote: »

Obviously you cant argue your case as a mature adult and you try to insult others to cover your weaknesses...the op said he cycles to uni and he never said that he pays road tax on a vehicle he owns..I am out of this discussion and I will continue to park where I like as long as I am not breaking any law

Sam1970 - you asked for a polite explanation about other people's comments about road tax. In a nutshell... there is no such thing as 'road tax' and hasn't been since the 1930s when it was abolished after a long campaign by Winston Churchill. Until that point, road tax was a 'hypothecated' tax, I believe - ie, money raised from the tax paid directly for the upkeep of the roads. Churchill, among others, realised that car drivers were using this to unfairly assert their rights to the roads above other road users who have an established 'right of way' to use the roads. Since then, upkeep of the roads has been paid for from general taxation - nowadays, most maintenance is paid for out of council highways budgets which in turn are paid for out of Council Tax, which every adult pays unless they have an exemption. What we colloquially continue to call 'road tax' has been through several incarnations; modern Vehicle Excise Duty, which is a tax on vehicle emissions. There are - literally - millions of motorised vehicles on the road which are exempt from this duty for one reason or another, from diplomatic vehicles to milk floats, emissions-free vehicles and - I'm pretty sure - vehicles belonging to people who are registered disabled. Bicycles produce no emissions; if they were subject to duty, it would be zero-duty so it's a waste of time and money setting up a registration scheme. Pretty much all adult cyclists are, however, council tax payers and pay a variety of other taxes that in turn pay for the roads. Motorists are 'double-taxed', if you like, because motorised vehicles produce so much more wear and tear than, eg, pedestrians, bicycles, horses and so on - it's the price people pay for driving vehicles that cause environmental damage. It's also worth noting that most cyclists also own cars so have already paid VED. With the exception of motorways (which as a non-driving cyclist I pay for, by the way, but never use), the roads are a common facility that are for everybody's use. We should all treat each other with courtesy when using them. Another small, but interesting point - it was cycling groups that first campaigned for and raised funds for UK roads to be properly surfaced. Bikes have been using the roads for longer than cars, see. I think it's worth clearing all this up...

Strider590

The only reason people shout at cyclists "get some f**king road tax", is that they're too stupid to come up with an argument.....

And what do stupid people do when they want to start and finish an argument?

They come out with a punchy "one liner", something they think you won't be able to respond to, something too stupid to justify a response.... They get the last word and they "win".

The "road tax" argument is exactly the same.

liam8282

The only thing I think cyclists should have when using the roads, is insurance.

Also, I think there should be a thread started for inconsiderate cyclists, you would think the roads near me are a section of the tour de france some weekends.

Is it also true that cyclists are supposed to ride single file?

Strider590

liam8282 wrote: »

The only thing I think cyclists should have when using the roads, is insurance.

Also, I think there should be a thread started for inconsiderate cyclists, you would think the roads near me are a section of the tour de france some weekends.

Is it also true that cyclists are supposed to ride single file?

No, it's better if they double up..... It's just brainless drivers get the hump.

When overtaking a cyclist, you should give as much room as for a car, this means you should be fully inside the oncoming lane. Therefore cyclists going 2 abreast require no more space than a single cyclist.

Now consider 20 cyclists riding together single file, it'd be near impossble to overtake without cutting in on at least a few of them.
But if they were 2 abreast, that's immediately halved the overtaking distance.

Drivers get the hump because they're used to overtaking FAR TOO CLOSELY.