New Cycle path abused by drivers

[Saluki]

We get a lot of it here. Our cycle lanes are separated from the main carriageway by a kerb so we are supposed to ride in the 3' of space between pavement kerb and road kerb. Apart from the usual muck and rubbish there, entering at one end generally means that you have to stop and get off, move bike to road carriageway and carry on because of all the cars parked in or over the dang cyclelane. Then the car drivers scream out of their windows as you are not in the cycle lane.

I often wonder if these brick-heads would park in a truck lane or a bus lane. Actually, they are morons so they probably would.

 

[ufkacbln]

Like this one?

Police cannot deal with it because parking is decriminalised - it is the Council cannot deal with it because it is within teh zig zag lines, so therefore the Plice have to deal with it

Except they can't because the double yellow lines take precedence over the pavement and pedestrian crossing offences

After a year and formal complaints to both it was decided that neither had jurisdiction.... so ended uo with Council's Road Safety meeting who suggested writing to the Police!


Finally solved it by a formal complaintt the Licensing Office who agreed that the drivers were not acting in accordance with their license and started awarding points.... problem solved within days

 

[mjr]

Vehicles aren't insured while being used for an illegal act, are they? There's many ways to skin this cat. It only needs one of the daffodils enforcing the laws to care but sadly often none of them do.

 

[Profpointy]

Vehicles aren't insured while being used for an illegal act, are they? There's many ways to skin this cat. It only needs one of the daffodils enforcing the laws to care but sadly often none of them do.

That can't be right. 3rd party insurance is to cover your liability when you are at fault. And "at-fault" will include various lawbraking such as careless driving or speeding.

 

[Cycleops]

 

[Cycleops]

Like this one?

View attachment 346669

Police cannot deal with it because parking is decriminalised - it is the Council cannot deal with it because it is within teh zig zag lines, so therefore the Plice have to deal with it

Except they can't because the double yellow lines take precedence over the pavement and pedestrian crossing offences

After a year and formal complaints to both it was decided that neither had jurisdiction.... so ended uo with Council's Road Safety meeting who suggested writing to the Police!


Finally solved it by a formal complaintt the Licensing Office who agreed that the drivers were not acting in accordance with their license and started awarding points.... problem solved within days

That a Taxi, doesn't count. All taxi drivers have frontal lobotomy as soon as they start the job so cannot be held responsible.

 

[hopless500]

Why don't they put double yellow lines on the road too?... that way the motons might understand that they shouldn't park there.

Double yellows make little difference.

 

[Globalti]

In Pakistan, city and airport authorities prevent illegal parking with a very simple and effective deterrent:

 

[MontyVeda]

Double yellows make little difference.

I think the vast majority of drivers don't park on double yellows. I also think the vast majority of drivers aren't aware that a marked cycle lane also means no parking.

 

[Drago]

That's because most car drivers are painfully ill educated about the rules of then road, and equally thoughtless. The sooner car ownership becomes too expensive for the average bod, the better.

 

[mjr]

That can't be right. 3rd party insurance is to cover your liability when you are at fault. And "at-fault" will include various lawbraking such as careless driving or speeding.

That made me check because I was believing what I was once told. Of the policies I have stored on my cloud, the most recent one mentions "costs resulting out of your criminal or illegal act" (just after a clause that I think is designed to exclude Uber-ing) and my understanding is that the insurer will pay the 3rd party and then pursue you to recover the amount. The older ones I've got have no such exclusion.

The next clause is also quite fun, excluding the costs of your car being confiscated or destroyed by government or police. I wonder if someone tried to claim for damage done towing their car away.

 

[Drago]

Plenty of case law on that one. If you're breaking the law by speeding, drink driving, etc, your insurance with respect to 3rd party risks is still valid. However, if the insurer has to pay out on a claim due to an unlawful act by yourself then they may sue you for their loss

 

[hopless500]

I think the vast majority of drivers don't park on double yellows. I also think the vast majority of drivers aren't aware that a marked cycle lane also means no parking.

Around here the vast majority take absolutely no notice of double yellows.

 

[MontyVeda]

Around here the vast majority take absolutely no notice of double yellows.

Your local council are missing out on a lot of revenue if they're not ticketing them... or is a £30 fpn cheaper than the car parks?

 

[mjr]

Plenty of case law on that one. If you're breaking the law by speeding, drink driving, etc, your insurance with respect to 3rd party risks is still valid. However, if the insurer has to pay out on a claim due to an unlawful act by yourself then they may sue you for their loss

Anyone willing to cite some? Ideally, something with a judgment online? I seem to be sucking at searching, or it's all so cut-and-dried that everyone's settling before it reaches court.