Cycling UK Forum

these geezers think so

nicmarsh wrote:these geezers think so

Looks like a company vehicle. I'd have checked out the company to see if it's a self employed person or a employer/employee type operation and if the latter, sending them the photo (asking why you should not use it for an article you are submitting to the local press about ....).

Ian

By the vehicle choice it's clear they are of that segment of the community who flout every other law and consider themselves picked on by authority and let's face it, that's prime parking space right on the junction. Let's face it, the authorities aren't interested, too many of them are part of the same social circle.

Just be glad these wannabe 'good ol' boys' don't have easy access to firearms - what? They're farmers so they do?

Pass quietly and get out of Dodge!

It'd probably be easy enough to climb onto the roof of that thing...

...wearing cleats of course...

I'd be careful my pedal didn't make a big scratch on the paintwork of that car as I squeezed past it

We had a mixed use path by the side of the road along the river in Lancaster. There's a ramp to the river halfway along. Last year a 4x4 used to park up tall to the ramp with a trailer and winch. They used to leave the trailer near the water for the jetski still attached to the car. So with the other cars with them I often had to squeeze through a small gap between their cars since the cable blocked the way. Just a bit further on was a police car sat doing nothing. They could see them but did nothing.

It would take some serious bolt cutters to deal with the cable right? If need something portable and very quick to give me the time to escape too.

That looks a very good cycle path. Pity about the selfishness of the pick up driver, but there aren't any double yellow lines so it must be OK to park there.
Now if there were bollards/anti motor cycle gates.................................

That looks like highway obstruction and not merely a parking offence. Call 101 or report it online to the local branch of http://www.police.uk/contact/ - clued-up constabularies might serve a motoring ASBO on the vehicle (Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002) and seize/crush it if it's spotted being a nuisance again within a year.

FlySussex should be ashamed. I've let them know https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status ... 005696?p=v (warning, NSFW T-word used when mentioning another twitter username)

This appears to be another example of where enforcement powers should be passed to highway authorities.

I say "appears" because a single pic doesn't really show whether this is a company regularly using part of the highway as an extension of its premises or a one-off.

We have a fundamental problem whereby the highway authority provides the highways - in this case what looks like a cycle track with adjacent footway - but is then largely dependent on increasingly non-existent police enforcement.

Re Regularly or one-off, if you want to use this bit of the highway and it's blocked, it makes no difference, but IMO a highway authority is better placed and arguably has more incentive to deal with persistent problems of highway misuse. A highway authority is unlikely to be in a position to deal with occasional problems, but I fancy the likelihood of the police responding to a call about an obstruction like this is minimal in 2018.

thirdcrank wrote:.....
We have a fundamental problem whereby the highway authority provides the highways......

(Hope I'm not quoting you too "out of context" and no attempt to twist any points - more quoting you to put my comment in context).

I have a bit of a "thing" about what Highways "provide". "highway authority provides the highways" but they also provide parking for residential developments where the developer wants greater profits by not providing off-street parking - so it comes down the the highway authority to provide such parking (i.e. building a road at public expense that is then used for parking by residents) - if we need a 2 way road and we pay for a 2 way road then why do we end up with a single lane road and a residential car park in the other lane!

Ian

reohn2 wrote:I'd be careful my pedal didn't make a big scratch on the paintwork of that car as I squeezed past it

Wot car? It's a light truck (and deserves to be regarded and treated as such)

squeaker wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I'd be careful my pedal didn't make a big scratch on the paintwork of that car as I squeezed past it

Wot car? It's a light truck (and deserves to be regarded and treated as such)

Sorry,it's my age and it being so far away

Seeing as the name "Fly Sussex" has been mentioned, I now recognise the exact locality.

It looks as if the pick-up was only just off Fly Sussex's own parking area. No excuse of course. Perhaps they could be persuaded to erect a low wall or similar barrier, between their car park and the cycle track? Oh - and take appropriate action against the offending driver, if it was one of their staff, of course...

With any luck, they're reading this. Especially as I've linked to them: Google bots take note!

I'm guessing a pickup with their logo on the door would not be driven by anyone who was not authorised to drive it by the company representatives / directors / owners / managers. The people who should take responsibility for ensuring correct user of their vehicle.

Looking at that street view it's quite bad parking there that close to a junction. It probably reduces sightlines for people pulling out or car drivers checking for cars about to pull out.

Not only that but the main road is the A27, which is one of the busiest roads in Sussex. That is one of the few single-carriageway sections in a road that's mostly D/C.