Incident with arrogant tow truck driver mounting cyclepath

[steveindenmark]

i must say I am surprised at this response from an ex policeman, .........then again maybe not

I was an ex policeman 30 years ago

 

[smutchin]

He may have just pulled up momentarily to check directions or make or take a call safely. You have no idea, why he stopped there yet you seem to have taken personal offence to the point of declaring nuclear war, despite the inconvenience to you being minimal. Better for him to stop there than say on a pavement blocking access for say wheelchair users. / mobility scooter , forcing them onto the road.

Bollocks. No excuse. Whatever his reason for stopping, unless it was a genuine emergency, he should have carried on to a place where it was appropriate to stop.

 

[Arjimlad]

Photograph it, "f*** off" and report it would be my view. No sense in engaging in anything which is not likely to be friendly/politely received.

 

[steveindenmark]

Bollocks. No excuse. Whatever his reason for stopping, unless it was a genuine emergency, he should have carried on to a place where it was appropriate to stop.

Has this site suddenly been invaded by Victor Meldrews. The op has no idea why the truck stopped there. He could have had a mechanical problem. Should the question not have been. "Could you tell me why you are parked on the cycle path". But unless people sign up and wear a tit hat like I did. You have no authority to tell people where they can park. What do you think the driver was going to say. Im terribly sorry I will move immediatley"? At best it would be "Mind your own business". If the Victors in here want to be cycle path policemen. Maybe you can start with those cyclist's who litter the cycle paths with gel wrappers

 

[roadrash]

Are you suggesting that only moaning old bastards should expect laws to be obeyed, perhaps you should wear a "tit hat" as you put it ,

 

[mjr]

Has this site suddenly been invaded by Victor Meldrews. The op has no idea why the truck stopped there. He could have had a mechanical problem.

If he had a mechanical problem, he should have stopped on the carriageway rather than take it out on more vulnerable road users by invading the refuge space built for them. I thought @steveindenmark was among those who condemn cyclists for using footways when they're having problems (basically doing the equivalent of what that driver did) but now I'm not so sure.

 

[roadrash]

serious question @steveindenmark , when you was a policeman did you think laws should be obeyed ,

 

[smutchin]

The op has no idea why the truck stopped there. He could have had a mechanical problem.

The kind of mechanical problem that made his van veer onto the cyclepath/footway? Yeah, right.

It's very simple: he was breaking the law.

You have no authority to tell people where they can park.

We all have the right to object to law-breakers and to voice an opinion on the matter. Although as some have rightly said, sometimes it is better not to voice your opinion, eg if said law-breaker is bigger than you.

 

[T4tomo]

The kind of mechanical problem that made his van veer onto the cyclepath/footway? Yeah, right.

It's very simple: he was breaking the law.



We all have the right to object to law-breakers and to voice an opinion on the matter. Although as some have rightly said, sometimes it is better not to voice your opinion, eg if said law-breaker is bigger than you.

Breaking the law isn't in doubt, the point was it unduly inconveniencing the OP to point of justifying his rage?

Right to object - yes., obligation to? - no.

 

[smutchin]

If the Victors in here want to be cycle path policemen. Maybe you can start with those cyclist's who litter the cycle paths with gel wrappers

Because people who complain about vans parked on the cyclepath think it's OK for other cyclists to drop litter. Obviously.

Ridiculous non-sequitur.

 

[smutchin]

Breaking the law isn't in doubt, the point was it unduly inconveniencing the OP to point of justifying his rage?

Right to object - yes., obligation to? - no.

Several have already suggested that moving on rather than continuing the confrontation was the right thing to do, and I agree with them.

But your suggestion that the driver might have had a good reason for stopping there is still bollocks. And as you now acknowledge yourself, 'breaking the law isn't in doubt'.

I refer you to my earlier answer:

Whatever his reason for stopping, unless it was a genuine emergency, he should have carried on to a place where it was appropriate to stop.

 

[derrick]

Here's the path, red line shows the route he drove.
View attachment 427370

I would be more concerned about the guy with the yellow paint brush.

 

[steveindenmark]

Victor Smutchin. Your making it up to suit your own ends now. Nobody said it "veered" It turned and mounted the path.It sounds as though it was under control.

I do think laws should be obeyed. But its common sense to find out why the law was being broken to begin with. Its not always black and white. Nobody knows why the truck was parked there. Its speculation.

 

[Lonestar]

Yes, suppose so but as I stated before, the moron should not have casually driven up onto it in the first place. As an engineer, these paviors aren't designed to take the weight of vehicles and do shift over time. So he was damaging it cumulatively.

Probably damaging the environment also.I'd 'ave the barsteward.

 

[captain nemo1701]

He may have just pulled up momentarily to check directions or make or take a call safely. You have no idea, why he stopped there yet you seem to have taken personal offence to the point of declaring nuclear war, despite the inconvenience to you being minimal. Better for him to stop there than say on a pavement blocking access for say wheelchair users. / mobility scooter , forcing them onto the road.

He mounted a cyclepath & pavement illegally. He showed no indication of making a mobile call which is, in itself, no legal reason to suddenly drive onto the path.
Frankly, I don't care why he stopped. There are double yellow lines that say 'No parking' on the road so this makes it OK to drive up onto a segregated path??.

Why are you defending his blatant law breaking just for his personal convenience?. There is actually space across the road where Kier construction have a car park. He could quite easily have stopped in that. No, this guy is a prize arrogant nobber, probably one who moans about cyclists on pavements but thinks the rules don't apply to him. When I drive and need to stop, I find a legal space. What annoys me about self-righteous motorists these days is that it's now perfectly OK to just mount the pavement.