If our morning live blog excursion to Belfast has taught us anything, it’s that we shouldn’t be surprised when a motorist (or ten, or twenty) decides that they belong in a protected cycle lane.

However, I’d still be pretty shocked if a driver ended up alongside me on a coastal path reserved for pedestrians and cyclists, and a fair distance from the nearest road.

Well, that’s the shock that greeted active travel advocate Adam Bronkhorst, who yesterday yesterday (though judging by the short sleeves on display, it wasn’t filmed yesterday) shared this close call with a motorist who – for some reason – decided to turn down a shared use path in the coastal village of Lancing, West Sussex…

… And, in a rather telling indicator of social media’s blame index when it comes to cyclists, despite the path being completely off limits for drivers, the Twitterati still managed to at least partially blame the cyclist for “not anticipating” the clearly confused motorist’s actions:

In the midst of all this whataboutery, Aaron summed the whole sorry debate up quite well:

Blows my mind that even on a shared use path where no vehicles are allowed, the attitude is still “you should’ve just braked and cut them some slack”. I could be on my home trainer and a car crashes through my wall and it’ll still be my fault 😂

On 10/02/2023 03:37 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> If our morning live blog excursion to Belfast has taught us anything, it’s that we shouldn’t be surprised when a motorist (or ten, or twenty) decides that they belong in a protected fairy-cycle lane.
>
> However, I’d still be pretty shocked if a driver ended up alongside me on a coastal path reserved for pedestrians and fairy-cyclists, and a fair distance from the nearest road.
>
> Well, that’s the shock that greeted active travel advocate Adam Bronkhorst, who yesterday yesterday (though judging by the short sleeves on display, it wasn’t filmed yesterday) shared this close call with a motorist who – for some reason – decided to turn down a shared use path in the coastal village of Lancing, West Sussex…
>
> … And, in a rather telling indicator of social media’s blame index when it comes to fairy-cyclists, despite the path being completely off limits for drivers, the Twitterati still managed to at least partially blame the cyclist for “not anticipating” the clearly confused motorist’s actions:
>
> In the midst of all this whataboutery, Aaron summed the whole sorry debate up quite well:
>
> Blows my mind that even on a ***shared use path where no vehicles are allowed***, the attitude is still “you should’ve just braked and cut them some slack”. I could be on my home trainer and a car crashes through my wall and it’ll still be my fault 😂

What is a "shared use path where no vehicles are allowed"?

With what class(es) of road user are the pedestrians "sharing" it?

People walking on their hands?

Sorry - missed out the video of this event.

Here it is. https://twitter.com/i/status/1623630741430059011

NOTE THE MANY CYCLIST/PEDESTRIAN ONLY SIGNS.
WHAT AN IDIOT.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/2023 03:37 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> If our morning live blog excursion to Belfast has taught us anything,
>> it’s that we shouldn’t be surprised when a motorist (or ten, or twenty)
>> decides that they belong in a protected fairy-cycle lane.
>>
>> However, I’d still be pretty shocked if a driver ended up alongside me
>> on a coastal path reserved for pedestrians and fairy-cyclists, and a
>> fair distance from the nearest road.
>>
>> Well, that’s the shock that greeted active travel advocate Adam
>> Bronkhorst, who yesterday yesterday (though judging by the short sleeves
>> on display, it wasn’t filmed yesterday) shared this close call with a
>> motorist who – for some reason – decided to turn down a shared use path
>> in the coastal village of Lancing, West Sussex…
>>
>> … And, in a rather telling indicator of social media’s blame index when
>> it comes to fairy-cyclists, despite the path being completely off limits
>> for drivers, the Twitterati still managed to at least partially blame
>> the cyclist for “not anticipating” the clearly confused motorist’s actions:
>>
>> In the midst of all this whataboutery, Aaron summed the whole sorry debate up quite well:
>>
>> Blows my mind that even on a ***shared use path where no vehicles are
>> allowed***, the attitude is still “you should’ve just braked and cut
>> them some slack”. I could be on my home trainer and a car crashes
>> through my wall and it’ll still be my fault 😂

> What is a "shared use path where no vehicles are allowed"?

> With what class(es) of road user are the pedestrians "sharing" it?

> People walking on their hands?

You can see it’s a fake video, because a) the cycle is fitted with a bell,
b) it is used vigorously, c) the cyclist actually uses his brakes!

--
Spike

Needless confrontation, dude was going into junction well before cyclist.

Replying to
@BioLogicalNerd
It’s not a junction. Driver shouldn’t be there at all. It’s a path.

SOME THICK DRIVERS AROUND.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Needless confrontation, dude was going into junction well before cyclist.

> Replying to
> @BioLogicalNerd

> It’s not a junction. Driver shouldn’t be there at all. It’s a path.

> SOME THICK DRIVERS AROUND.

Where were the ‘No vehicles’ signs?

--
Spike

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 6:03:07 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> Needless confrontation, dude was going into junction well before cyclist.
>
> Replying to
> @BioLogicalNerd
> It’s not a junction. Driver shouldn’t be there at all. It’s a path.
>
> SOME THICK DRIVERS AROUND.

@AdamBronkhorst

It's not a highway. It's a shared use cycle and footpath.

I am talking about the pedestrians. The car is at fault, as they should not be on a shared pedway. But on a shared pedway, the pedestrian has the right of way.

In the new hierarchy of road users bikes have priority too. So next time you see a cyclist when you're driving, remember that.

On 10/02/2023 07:10 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 6:03:07 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Needless confrontation, dude was going into junction well before cyclist.
>>
>> Replying to
>> @BioLogicalNerd
>> It’s not a junction. Driver shouldn’t be there at all. It’s a path.
>>
>> SOME THICK DRIVERS AROUND.
>
> @AdamBronkhorst
>
> It's not a highway. It's a shared use cycle and footpath.
>
> I am talking about the pedestrians. The car is at fault, as they should not be on a shared pedway. But on a shared pedway, the pedestrian has the right of way.
>
> In the new hierarchy of road users bikes have priority too. So next time you see a cyclist when you're driving, remember that.

What is a "shared pedway"?

Other than something in your imagination, I mean.
>

@AdamBronkhorst
If it’s a shared-use cycle path & cars are not allowed, then the car driver is in the wrong for using it & also pulling out in front of you.

I thought they were going to stop as they did slow down, but then pulled out. It is a shared use path and not a road.

The other day, a helicopter landed on the footpath in front of my house. Luckily for me, only my right index finger was severed by the tail-rotor as I pointed in surprise. I am kicking myself for not stopping more quickly though as the noise was warning enough.

It's Lancing seafront in Sussex. Part of the National Cycle Route 2. You're welcome to look it up.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> @AdamBronkhorst
> If

SUPPOSITION WARNING!

> it’s a shared-use cycle path & cars are not allowed, then the car driver
> is in the wrong for using it & also pulling out in front of you.

> I thought they were going to stop as they did slow down, but then pulled
> out. It is a shared use path and not a road.

> The other day, a helicopter landed on the footpath in front of my house.
> Luckily for me, only my right index finger was severed by the tail-rotor
> as I pointed in surprise. I am kicking myself for not stopping more
> quickly though as the noise was warning enough.
>
> It's Lancing seafront in Sussex. Part of the National Cycle Route 2.
> You're welcome to look it up.

How can it be a Cycle Route if pedestrians have priority on it? It’s a
footpath with cyclists as a permitted secondary user! Look it up.

--
Spike

On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at 5:52:48 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> @AdamBronkhorst
> If it’s a shared-use cycle path & cars are not allowed, then the car driver is in the wrong for using it & also pulling out in front of you.
>
> I thought they were going to stop as they did slow down, but then pulled out. It is a shared use path and not a road.
>
> The other day, a helicopter landed on the footpath in front of my house. Luckily for me, only my right index finger was severed by the tail-rotor as I pointed in surprise. I am kicking myself for not stopping more quickly though as the noise was warning enough.
>
> It's Lancing seafront in Sussex. Part of the National Cycle Route 2. You're welcome to look it up.

You have not repeated that it is a shared use path not meant for cars enough.
Twenty times is not enough for idiot drivers.