Richmond Park road rage nutjob..

i’m not dictating anything.

you asked how people would travel to a park that’s already surrounded by train stations, if they didn’t want to cycle and driving was further discouraged.

i subtly suggested that they might consider using a train.

my opinion in this counts not one jot. My idle ramblings can hardly be considered dictatorial

My apologies, it is a very helpful suggestion, even if the original question was rhetorical, (in the context that the park was there for all user groups to enjoy and the facilities were there to accommodate cars).

Pedestrians have priority when crossing the road, whether there is a zebra crossing at that junction or not.

IMO that needs to be better publicised then – no-one riding will know that – so the shouting may well be shouting a warning if someone’s stepping out into the road rather than abuse. It’s also a bit daft, changing the priority to the reverse of what it is on the public highway – it’s bound to cause confusion

Pedestrians have priority when crossing the road, whether there is a zebra crossing at that junction or not.

I didn’t know this either. I haven’t seen any signs about this when entering the park or within the park.

This spurred a search on Google and I came across ‘On the Road in Richmond Park’ produced by the Richmond Park Local Policing Team. It sets out the rules and guidance for park users, including motorists and cyclists: http://www.frp.org.uk/pdf/frp/44_On_the_Road_In_Richmond_Park_Website_version_040712.pdf

Among many things it says:
– Consideration for Pedestrians:
Pedestrians have priority, so let people cross if you see them waiting.

On the road [cyclists]:
– Ride no more than 2 abreast.
– Keep groups tight and to 8 riders or less.
– Warn of hazards with hand signals if possible. (Avoid shouting)

It also says that drivers (and cyclists) can cross the double solid white lines to overtake a cyclist travelling 10mph or less.

You learn something new, as they say.

So, unless you go hunting for info, no-one knows that pedestrians have priority… that’s effective isn’t it!
And in the meantime, the Great British Public are so convinced that cyclists are anti-social menaces, that any shouted warning is assumed to be abuse… when in fact the problem that needs solving is proper communication to all Park users of the reversal of the right of way when you pass through the gates of the Park…

+ has anyone actually thought it through? – stopping a bike from 20mph ain’t easy…

This is an interesting article…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110608/The-cyclists-revenge-Coffee-shops-owned-butcher-filmed-astonishing-rant-cyclist-attacked-TripAdvisor-dozens-poor-reviews-complaining-owner.html

I knew this, isn’t it in the highway code?
Rule 170;

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

This is an interesting article…

The comments section is even more interesting. A real eye opener to the type of people that have a user account with the DM. C***s.

Whilst Im a little late to this pissing party, has nobody noticed that the cyclist spits on the small angry man at 0:47 secs?
Not sure whether that was deliberate or accidental though. No very nice either.

As an aside, the DM isn’t the only repository for offensive comments – have you seen the ITN coverage on facebook?

It saddens me that there are so many knobbers out there, even the Daily Heil doesn’t catch them all.

So one of the most basic things in the Highway code on pedestrian right of way is a surprise to many here.

I am hoping none of you drive a car…

What’s in the HC isn’t quite the same – it’s about peds crossing side roads you might be turning into.

That highway code section is about a road into which you are turning and pedestrians have priority if they have started to cross.

The RP leaflet takes things further and says that you should let people cross if they are waiting. It goes beyond those that have started to cross already and is not limited to a road into which you are turning.

There is a difference.

EDIT – Beaten to it by aracer

EDIT – Beaten to it by aracer

However did he manage it with only one line and no use of bold text? 😉

He certainly did! 😀

you should let people cross if they are waiting

from cycling in Holland this is what seems to happen anyway when strict liability is in force.

maybe it is because of the fear of an potential insurance scam ?

Among many things it says:
– Consideration for Pedestrians:
Pedestrians have priority, so let people cross if you see them waiting.

It also says that drivers (and cyclists) can cross the double solid white lines to overtake a cyclist travelling 10mph or less.

You learn something new, as they say.

1st one is in the highway code, when entering side streets, or on zebra crossings, so its only a natural extension, don’t understand why it should be so suprising

2nd one, is also permitted within the highway code, to pass any vehicle doing less than 10mph (so tractors etc as well as cyclists)

Again should come as no surprise

ok, hands up, who’s the slow guy only doing 10 mph on the road? get him on a training plan.

Ha! I caught this as it broke the other day on twitter via a friend in the area. It’s an interesting – yet unwitting – exercise in how to anger a group of people and receive attacks from pretty much all angles when you have so much of a presence on the web, not just personal but professional too.
When the trip advisor reviews started to trickle in (I only saw two or three, not many had appeared when I saw it first) it was a bit of a laugh, then someone’s rather disturbing detective work on his twitter feed revealed another little fellow…erm…that perhaps no one wanted to know about, though as many have attested as explanation of his outburst etc.
It made be wonder how it managed to escalate quite so much. We’ve all seen these road-rage car v bike go-pro videos but I don’t think any have really spread like this one. Cyclists cover a broad spectrum, from the casual day-tripper, the daily commuter, the road warrior (and off-road warrior!) and beyond so many people ride bikes and understand the vulnerabilities when riding through traffic. It’s bad enough with cars zipping past with just a few inches (if you’re lucky) to spare, that the chap actually got out of his car after pushing a cyclist into the curb instantly gave everyone a face, an identity with which to vent their angst and frustrations of poor driving – even though they themselves were not the recipients at the time – and so the backlash began. No driver can honestly defend him for his driving and getting out of the car aggressively, no one would defend the cyclist for his poor choice of words but the fact remains. It seems this chap was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I’m not defending his actions at all but the way the [online] crowds/mob? took it and ran with it was at once impressive as it was alarming.

as far as social experiments go it’s quite an eye-opener! basically don’t be a dick, and don’t get filmed being a dick. otherwise someone might find a photo of your…well, you know.

Personally I don’t think the fake TripAdvisor reviews are good practice.

It’s one thing to express an opinion about the man’s behaviour and choose not to use his business, it’s another to tell lies and fabricate insulting nonsense.

So one of the most basic things in the Highway code on pedestrian right of way is a surprise to many here.

I am hoping none of you drive a car…

Well I think we’re all hoping you don’t either! If you go around stopping dead for every pedestrian looking like they’re about the cross the road when you’re through traffic with right of way, you’re going to cause no end of rear enders!

Rule 1 of the internet, check your facts before posting…

So one of the most basic things in the Highway code on pedestrian right of way is a surprise to many here.

certainly seem to be a lot of drivers who don’t know about it, having had to jump out of the way of a few that were turning into side streets I was crossing. It’s fairly common, had a guy, in an astra I think, do it last week, for bonus points he was jumping a red light aswell.

brooess it’s not clear, but if the “one thing” kerley was talking about was crossing side streets then s/he is correct.

ahwiles – Member

warns74 – Member

How would all the non-cyclist get to anywhere within the park and enjoy it without being able to drive in and use the car parks and support the rest of the facilities there?

i know **** all about London, but even i know that Richmond Park is a leisurely 20min dawdle from the station.

edit: i’m wrong, my apologies.

it’s a leisurely 20min dawdle from about 10 different stations.

Good luck in doing that ‘dawdle’ (Richmond park is large and the Richmond entrance is at the opposite end of Richmond at the top of a hill) with a young family in tow like a lot of the park users who arrive by car (assuming you live near a station to get the one nearby in the first place).

From a road closure point of view, the car parks are not all conveniently located at each entrance,rather dotted around the loop, so that would restrict the access to many parts of the park for anyone who does not want to cycle in or plan for a long walk.

Personally I dislike going there on sunny weekends (there’s plenty of other good open space in the area) due to the large numbers of cyclists and cars, a minority of whom (riders and drivers alike) clearly think that despite the busy 2 way roads they can just be totally ignorant to the situation and position themselves selfishly and dangerously.

brooess it’s not clear, but if the “one thing” kerley was talking about was crossing side streets then s/he is correct.

Agreed. Also agree that few drivers seem to know it, or at least care about it

The scenario we were talking about was that in Richmond Park, pedestrians appear to have priority at all points in the road, wherever they choose to cross… which is not what the Highway Code says for roads in general

If you go around stopping dead for every pedestrian looking like they’re about the cross the road when you’re through traffic with right of way, you’re going to cause no end of rear enders!

You’re not going to cause anything of the sort, the driver behind is the one who will be causing a collision.

Rule 1, etc. (-:

1st one is in the highway code, when entering side streets, or on zebra crossings, so its only a natural extension, don’t understand why it should be so suprising

2nd one, is also permitted within the highway code, to pass any vehicle doing less than 10mph (so tractors etc as well as cyclists)

Re 2 I don’t recall this one from the HC (once again you learn something). I always avoid crossing the double line until it breaks. Time for a HC brush up I think!

Re 1 – Should be made clearer if the rules of the road change within the park. It would be safer – even if it does seem like a natural extension to some.

You’re not going to cause anything of the sort, the driver behind is the one who will be causing a collision.

Rule 1, etc. (-:

You know what I mean! 🙂 Yes the driver behind will be legally at fault but it’s the one who stops dead in through traffic that causes the whole thing

superleggero

I don’t recall this one from the HC (once again you learn something). I always avoid crossing the double line until it breaks. Time for a HC brush up I think!

129
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Just had a quick look at that DM clickbait. The comments are predictably depressing; road tax, lycra, usual fare. But this was a new one on me; lots of people saying that cycle lanes are for kids, nervous cyclists and people learning to ride. Where on Earth are they getting that idea from?

cycle lanes are for kids, nervous cyclists and people learning to ride. Where on Earth are they getting that idea from

I think its because they seem to be the majority of riders on popular paths ? but unless you rode them you wouldnt know !

so does that mean that more confident cyclists *should* be in the road? Or that you have to give up once you reach a particular level of competency? 😕

Where on Earth are they getting that idea from?

If there’s one thing I’ve learnt as I’ve got older is that holding a strong opinion about how other people should behave does not require the opinion-holder to have any commonsense, access to facts or even any experience of the matter in question!

But this was a new one on me; lots of people saying that cycle lanes are for kids, nervous cyclists and people learning to ride. Where on Earth are they getting that idea from?

Possibly from their commute, when they see all the competent cyclists not using them ?

Iain1775, you are a good man, and thorough.

This dude abides.

The current cycle lane situation is awful – there are very few dedicated cycle lanes I’d ever use. That one (in the video) is a perfect example – there’s no way you could get anywhere in any reasonable time using them. Fine for taking the kids to school but obviously no good as part of a 10 + mile commute.

All that will happen when these berks complain is that roads will get narrowed for dedicated cycle lanes. But actually all that needs to happen is Mr and Mrs angry learn to CTFO.

The park should be closed to through traffic = access to the closest car park to each entrance and no further (with filtered permeability to allow bikes through). This is a hugely valuable open space near central London – it would be better for all users without through traffic. It’s not the 1950’s any more – the idea of driving in a park as a leisure activity is just not acceptable given the pollution London suffers.

There’s a perfectly good network of roads around the park – anyone who wants to visit a car park not closest to them will have a longer journey but that’s small beer compared to the greater benefits. Hell, the route through the park can’t be essential for any journey as it closes at dusk (riding after it’s closed to motor vehicles is just fantastic).

And any impact on congestion elsewhere will likely not happen – google traffic evaporation Everyone knows that traffic increases as you create extra capacity – the reverse is also true.

More commentary on the social backlash:

Link

I see both sides of the argument: pitchfork & frustration. There’s little doubt in my mind that Well’s apology is insincere, coupled with the lack of punishment for his actions…..I can see how some have taken it as far as they have.

However, I feel it’s also starting to border on the scary……..though the cat is out of the bag & how do you get it back in?

Maybe the the best thing you could say about the whole episode is that perhaps it might make one or two drivers think twice about the way they treat cyclists & give us a little more room. If only if it’s because they are afraid of getting caught & outed via social media….!!

I would be quite worried now that next time he gets in his disco all coked up, he actually decides to exact revenge for his humiliation and uses it to do some real physical harm to a cyclist.

I would be quite worried now that next time he gets in his disco all coked up

his pupils look quite small though – would they not be enlarged if this was the case?

MSP

The word you left out is “allegedly”.

😉

+1 for the view that the response is an uncorking of the bottled up frustration of cyclists who have come to expect harassment and abuse as ‘part of the experience’ of riding…

You can only mistreat someone or a community for so long before they push back – history has show this repeatedly.

For cyclists, social media is an outlet for this, whereas when you’re out on the road and on your own there’s very little you can do to fight back/stop it happening in the first place.

To me, the social media response has come about because a) it happened in the first place and b) the Police response was inadequate. I think it’s a good thing that the anger among cyclists is palpable if it raises the profile of the debate and becomes the beginning of a real and proper rebalancing of how we use our roads…