Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclist doing something legal in Scunthorpe makes the local paper

Slow moving cyclist climbing a long hill causes outrage in Scunthorpe

We’re struggling to see what the story is - but in Scunthorpe a slow-moving cyclist pedalling up a long hill has made the papers after he allegedly held up 100 vehicles.

According to the Scunthorpe Telegraph, the rider “left the Tata Steel works at the Anchor exit and then, perfectly legally, began the long haul up the hill - in the middle of the only available lane,” due to the council closing off the second lane with cones.

Councillor Nigel Sherwood (Brigg & Wolds), said: "It has already been flagged up," he said. "A cyclist in one lane biked all the way up Mortal Ash in the 'live' lane and there was no room for cars - 100 vehicles being behind him.

"It's something we need to look at and try and address."

He did stress that the cyclist had done nothing wrong and wondered whether he might have used the footpath instead.

"We need give and take on both sides. Help each other if you can," he suggested.

“A considerate early morning cyclist - holding up traffic between Forest Pines roundabout and the top of Mortal Ash Hill on his way towards Scunthorpe - pulled over to the right, into the coned off area, to let traffic go by."

Would a tractor or milk float have made the morning papers? You decide.

Add new comment

57 comments

Avatar
Belaroo | 9 years ago
0 likes

It just highlights the lack of provision for cyclists. It costs drivers nothing to take their foot of a pedal, that guy was under his own power. Once you get up momentum, you aren't going to stop every few yards to let cars past.
If all the kids who wanted to ride to school did so, there'd be no room for the cars.
What's normal in this world is not normal, it's just how it's been made to be normal. I wish when they'd churned up the original road to build this dual carraigeway, they'd left some way for other road users to get where they were going without needing to ride on this anyway.
I think his climb was a brilliant protest to an unthinking, wasteful world.

Avatar
Belaroo | 9 years ago
0 likes

It just highlights the lack of provision for cyclists. It costs drivers nothing to take their foot of a pedal, that guy was under his own power. Once you get up momentum, you aren't going to stop every few yards to let cars past.
If all the kids who wanted to ride to school did so, there'd be no room for the cars.
What's normal in this world is not normal, it's just how it's been made to be normal. I wish when they'd churned up the original road to build this dual carriageway, they'd left some way for other road users to get where they were going without needing to ride on this anyway.
I think his climb was a brilliant protest to an unthinking, wasteful world.

Avatar
shay cycles replied to tom_w | 9 years ago
0 likes
tom_w wrote:

Highway code rule 169?

"169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

Applies to chaingangs and lone cyclists on big hills just as much as it does to tractors, cranes and all the other things we'd expect to pull over every so often if we encounted them causing a massive tailback when driving a car. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169.

(sorry, pet peeve)

Pet peeve it may well be, but....

A) The rule uses the advisory wording "Do not" and then conditions it with "if necessary, pull in where it is safe...."
B) A safe place to pull over would not include an area coned off (see rule 288 "Do not drive through an area marked off by traffic cones" - also using the advisory wording). If it would not be safe to pull off and then rejoin then clearly the cyclist, chain-gang or tractor should not pull over.
C) The footpath rule 64 is really clear and legally enforceable "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" so the pavement was not an option.

So the rider in this case did exactly the correct thing.

I don't like it when people criticise people on bikes for doing the right thing.

Sorry, pet peeve!

Avatar
workhard replied to Pete B | 9 years ago
0 likes
Pete B wrote:

These links are to recent stories in the Scunthtope Telegraph on the issue of cyclists using pavements.

http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/Pensioner-slams-cyclists-riding-Scu...

This link in particular is what councilor Sherwood said about the issue in February this year, when he called for more action from the police to stop “pavement cycling”

http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/Action-cycle-hits-boy/story-2061771...

I live across the Humber near Hull and not Scunthorpe but it is the same Police Force and in Hull in recent months there have been a few dozen cyclists that weren’t given a FPN for “pavement cycling” but taken to court and fined £200 plus costs of £85.

Why aren't the local police following the advice reiterated by Home Office and ACPO in January of this year?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/20/police-cycl...

Avatar
A V Lowe | 9 years ago
0 likes

Perhaps, of the council consulted TAL 15/99 they might consider the appropriate lane widths for road works which are suitable for the drivers of motor vehicles to pass cyclists safely, noting the width specified for safe passing by LGV's and PCV's, it might then be appropriate to mark a temporary advisory cycle lane, which of course does not require a TRO, although the line closure itself may require one.

Well done that cyclist, and equally the driver in the vehicle following immediately behind for having the patience and sense not to hassle the cyclist, or respond to any pressures from the drivers behind them in the traffic queue.

Avatar
Initialised replied to shay cycles | 9 years ago
0 likes
shay cycles wrote:
tom_w wrote:

Highway code rule 169?

"169 Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

Applies to chaingangs and lone cyclists on big hills just as much as it does to tractors, cranes and all the other things we'd expect to pull over every so often if we encounted them causing a massive tailback when driving a car. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169.

(sorry, pet peeve)

Pet peeve it may well be, but....

A) The rule uses the advisory wording "Do not" and then conditions it with "if necessary, pull in where it is safe...."
B) A safe place to pull over would not include an area coned off (see rule 288 "Do not drive through an area marked off by traffic cones" - also using the advisory wording). If it would not be safe to pull off and then rejoin then clearly the cyclist, chain-gang or tractor should not pull over.
C) The footpath rule 64 is really clear and legally enforceable "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement" so the pavement was not an option.

So the rider in this case did exactly the correct thing.

I don't like it when people criticise people on bikes for doing the right thing.

Sorry, pet peeve!

Rules for cyclists? Damned if you follow them, damned if you don't!

Further, rule 169 specifies driving. Cars, Vans, Lorries etc... are driven. Horses, Motorbikes, Mopeds and Bicycles are ridden not driven so 169 does not apply.

Avatar
PhilRuss | 9 years ago
0 likes

[[[[[ Yes...on a Critical Mass ride in the Big Smoke a while back, the male driver of a very swish jamjar, blocked by bloody cyclists, was tearing his hair out and foaming at the mouth. His lady companion's frown was so fierce her eyebrows descended to somewhere below her nose. "Having a nice evening?" I enquired.
"I'd get home a effing sight quicker without twats like you!" he grated.
"Well, fancy that!" I said. "Cyclists do this demo once a month, whereas drivers get in my way, block my progress and endanger my health twice a day, five days a week, and weekends too---so who's a bigger twat?"
To give him his due, he sighed, began to look thoughtful, and said not another word.
P.R.

Avatar
ColT | 9 years ago
0 likes

First world problems, eh?

Meanwhile, somewhere in the real world, a group of young girls gets kidnapped. #Perspective.

Truth is, only the first few cars in the tailback would have been aware that it was some bloke on a bike up front, so the story HAD to be told to ensure that EVERYONE was outraged.

Jeez, I despair. Come out here and sample the infamous Taiwanese road behaviour.

Avatar
WolfieSmith replied to Gus T | 9 years ago
0 likes
Gus T wrote:

Remember this chip wrapper is owned by the same people who own the The Daily Wail, in order to reduce costs they appear to no longer employ journalists or even people who can cross check back editions for previous articles on the subject, just article writers. Like its nearby sister chip wrapper The Hull Daily Mail, it survives by writing so called articles that sensationalise local events in order to allow deadheads to write ill informed and inaccurate comments in order to generate responses so that they can download adverts to increase their revenues.  37

It's a shame the BBC website doesn't feature click throughs. We could halve the licence fee on the back of all the guff on there.

Avatar
brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes

I get this a lot from my wife and her mum - "Why does that cyclist have to go up that hill? Why couldn't they just pull over and let everyone past?". They both forget that a motor vehicle slowing down is a matter of easing off the accelerator pedal, maybe changing gear. Slowing down or stopping on a hill on a bicycle is a complete PITA as you then have to put a *lot* more effort (than a driver does) into getting started again...

And, as another poster has commented, its not exactly common for that ever-so-thankful queue of motor traffic to gratefully let you back into the main flow of traffic.

Avatar
Cranky Acid | 9 years ago
0 likes

We need more of this sort of reporting then maybe drivers will start demanding Space for Cycling. Is it too much to expect local hacks to figure that much out?

Avatar
Bigcog | 9 years ago
0 likes

And no one even thought to stop and put his bike in the back to give him a well earned lift to the top of the hill..  3

Avatar
notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes

I must admit I would probably have pulled over at some point. However, I wasn't there to tell you the facts, and I don't know the road. If he had pulled over, and proceeded to let every queueing car pass by, then started riding again, at what point would he magically be obliged to pull over again? When there's one more car behind him? Ten? At every single viable place to pull in? All this article demonstrates is that the dimwits that planned the roadworks didn't take cyclists into account when they devised a single available lane. That the author of the article didn't think to challenge this just illustrates the journalists' investigative ability.

Avatar
freespirit1 | 9 years ago
0 likes

The local authority concerned should also be checking that the contractors have not taken more space than they need. I am quite certain they could have made a safe lane from one of those they had closed.

Avatar
Hunge | 9 years ago
0 likes

Boo f**king hoo, a cyclist holds up traffic. I remember coming home from a camping trip and the traffic was banked up for a few km's. Thinking that there maybe an accident up ahead, we slowly moved along only to realise that it was just a 'roundabout'. There was no traffic once we went through the roundabout. Roundabouts have been in this country (Australia) for 30 odd years and they still hold up traffic and drivers still don't know how to use them and you NEVER read in the papers or on the net that a 'roundabout' is holding up traffic. Drivers need to build a bridge and get over it.

Avatar
festival replied to paulfg42 | 9 years ago
0 likes
paulfg42 wrote:
tom_w wrote:

Highway code rule 169?

"169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."

Applies to chaingangs and lone cyclists on big hills just as much as it does to tractors, cranes and all the other things we'd expect to pull over every so often if we encounted them causing a massive tailback when driving a car. https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169.

(sorry, pet peeve)

Where would it have been safe to pull in?

And how long should he wait for the traffic to pass?

Avatar
shay cycles replied to Initialised | 9 years ago
0 likes

Thanks - a good point and even more justification that the rider was correct.  11

Avatar
tom_w replied to shay cycles | 9 years ago
0 likes
shay cycles wrote:
tom_w wrote:

Highway code rule 169?

I don't like it when people criticise people on bikes for doing the right thing.

Sorry, pet peeve!

I completely agree, which is why I didn't criticise him. If there was nowhere for him to pull over then he did exactly the right thing to continue to take the primary position and ride up the hill as is his right. I was simply pointing out that if there was somewhere for him to pull over safely then the highway code advises he should do so.

Someone else has suggested that 169 doesn't apply to cyclists, in which case I stand corrected, although I still think it's a pretty good rule for anything on the road to adhere to; my dislike of people causing massive tailbacks is not because of the delays they cause, it's because of the idiocy they seem to trigger in some drivers. I'm sure we've all followed a tractor and seen cars overtaking on blind corners etc. because they simply 'can't' wait any longer.

As someone else very rightly said, traffic management for road works often completely fails to take account of cyclists and other slow moving vehicles and that needs to be corrected. That goes for the timings on traffic lights at roadworks too which are often much to short to allow average cyclists to clear the area under traffic control.

Avatar
Simmo72 | 9 years ago
0 likes

If Amazon, Startbucks, Green and the rest of the morally bent tax dodgers paid their way we would have the cash for a decent cycling infrastructure, though no doubt it we did have this money the government would slash it up the wall on some half cooked idea.....special lanes for jaguar and bentley drivers.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 9 years ago
0 likes

Took a bus today as illness meant didn't feel up to cycling. As expected the bus was _agonisingly_ slow, took about four times as long as the same journey would on a bike. The reason it was so slow was the whole route consisted of roads reduced to a single lane due to endless rows of parked cars on both sides (in some cases illegally parked in absurd places, but mostly parked quite legally), so that every time a vehicle came the other way the bus had to labouriously pull over to let it squeeze past.

The number one reason for delayed journeys is the presence of so many cars, and especially _parked_ cars. A great many supposed throughfares have now become primarily car parks.
(Even some of the pavements here are now too narrow for two pedestrians to pass each other due to parking bays being painted on them so as to leave just enough roadspace for at least one-way traffic)

Until motorists stop insisting on on-street parking (and stop making so many journeys in unnecessarily over-sized vehicles) then for them to complain about cyclists 'holding them up' is pure hypocrisy. Even the slowest cyclist moves faster than a parked car.

(This is actually the main reason why I gave up on buses in the first place. Almost invariably they'd be slower than _walking_ due to endless queues of near stationary cars stretching into the distance each with only one person in, and half the road surface being used as a car park. Motorists need to 'put their own house in order' before they complain about other modes 'getting in their way').

Avatar
notfastenough replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 9 years ago
0 likes
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

(Even some of the pavements here are now too narrow for two pedestrians to pass each other due to parking bays being painted on them so as to leave just enough roadspace for at least one-way traffic)

Don't get me started - we have a double buggy (twins), but it's a narrow design - think it'5 65cm wide. Quite often I have to step onto the road to get round parked cars. I pity the first driver responsible who is actually present and within earshot when I have to do this, because the notion that their convenience and paintwork entitles them to use the pavement and force a pair of 6-month-olds into the road is one that I can get rather aggrieved with.

Avatar
Luano | 9 years ago
0 likes

I work in Scunthorpe and have to commute up mortal ash hill everyday to get home, so I have good experience of the hill / roadworks, it's 2 lane's, the road works are in the outside (overtaking/fast whatever you want to call it) lane, and it's actually a 30 limit in the roadworks section, the works end half way up and then it's back to national speedlimit, so to say the cyclist could of used the coned off area is ridiculous, he would of obviously ended up in the outside lane with fast moving traffic on the steepest part of the hill with no way back across other than to cut through traffic.
The path is set back about 3 feet from the curb, and you wouldn't want to ride on it, rough, pot holed mainly broken up, and narrow. The section between the road and path, is no mans land, long grass and covered in general main road debris.
And there isn't anywhere safe to pull in, other than an exit slip road from the steel works and a small gravel layby, either way it's a constant flow of traffic around that time so he'd of been waiting a while!

Avatar
brooksby | 9 years ago
0 likes

I guess another point is that motorists really don't seem to be able to see why cyclists might do the things they do (and don't get me started on the commenter in my local paper's website who asked why taxes should be used to pay for *anything* for people who choose to travel to work using a child's toy (!!!)).

This morning I had a well-dressed middle-aged woman (older than me, anyway, and I'm 43) scream out of her window as we stopped next to each other at a junction that I had been "all over the f-ing road, you f-ing idiot!". She then wound her window back up and raced off.

Wind back a quarter mile or so...

I was riding generally maybe three feet out from the kerb on a very wide downhill road (Queen's Road, Bristol, for anyone that knows it, past the Students Union). As you may know, you have to be at least that far out unless you have full suspension, due to all the potholes and sunken trenches, and *sometimes* you need to move further out. I was going a good clip, and all of central Bristol is a 20mph speed limit anyway. No cars close behind me.

I went toward the right of the lane as I approached the first of a pair of mini roundabouts, to go straight on, then went across the second, then got passed by (it transpires) this woman so close that she practically touched my handlebars, making hand gestures at me, just as we both went through a pinch point caused by a zebra crossing with an island in the middle. I admit to making a rude hand gesture back at her, then carried on with my journey, where we met at the next junction (as you do).

Unfortunately, you cannot explain about the potholes and trenches as someone is screaming at you out of their window at a junction. You cannot explain that you are moving over to the right because that's what you do where traffic is splitting off into two directions. You cannot explain that bikes have to go around raised mini roundabouts and cannot drive over the middle of them like many cars I see.

Just wanted to vent that, and to say, again, how much the invective thrown at cyclists in local papers is down to motorists not understanding and not considering why someone might do something.

Avatar
Andrewbanshee | 9 years ago
0 likes

Once again the cyclist bashing even though most of the law breakers are motorists, RLJ'ing, creeping at junctions, lack of hand brake use, under taking, speeding, texting,the list is endless.
A cyclist on the other hand lawfully holds up traffic, is it really holding up traffic if they are following the highway code? Surely by now even the stalwart motor fascist should realise that the mass of cars on the highways is too much.

As a cyclist I obey the rules but still I got smashed off my bike by a Jeep driver even though a lane was empty for overtaking. He drove off. This should be an immediate lifetime ban. I would add that anyone in official office who spouts ridiculous comments should be booted out of office. They are truly too stupid to trust they could make a sensible decision on anything.

Avatar
levermonkey | 9 years ago
0 likes

If the road does not have a minimum speed limit then technically no-one was held up by anyone.  19

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

Brooksby: "You were all over the road" - that seems to be a standard excuse drivers have for close passes. You were all over the road, hence the (poor) driver had no choice *but* to close pass you - otherwise how would they have gotten to that next queue before you?!!

Note that cycling in a straight lane counts as "all over the road" if you're more than 20 centimetres from the kerb.

Avatar
felixcat replied to Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

You have nailed it there Paul.
In motorists' parlance "all over the road" means "not in the gutter".
I have been accused of this on an occasion when I did not waver from my line. It clearly meant that I was further out than the driver liked.

Pages

Latest Comments