- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Campaigners say Richmond bike lane should be removed after abuse from locals and drivers
Footage has emerged of cyclists being abused on a busy road in Richmond, leading to campaigners urging the council to take urgent action.
A driver was filmed verbally abusing cyclists for not using a cycle lane on Priory Lane, in the same week a coffee shop owner was recorded doing the same thing.
London Cycling Campaign’s Infrastructure campaigns manager Simon Monk told the Evening Standard: “There are very clear reasons why people cycling aren’t using it.
"There are a lot of side roads which drivers can go down at high speeds and the track just disappears at the lights so unless you live in one of the side roads and you’re travelling from the football ground it doesn’t take you anywhere.
“We see this situation over and over again. A few drivers are very self-entitled and think it’s ok to hold a mobile in their hand and abuse a cyclist while driving.”
Riders are not obliged to use cycle lanes.
A Wandsworth Council spokesman said a consultation was underway, looking at ways to improve safety on Priory Lane
He said: “This would include widening the carriageway and installing additional safety features to reduce vehicle speeds.
“It will be important for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists to give us their views.”
Latest Comments
- chrisonatrike 4 min 31 sec ago
I'm not specifically disputing that there is poorer Welsh NHS performance but just what you're presenting there (I'm just holding you to your...
- Trevor Anderson 5 min 15 sec ago
Before widespread car ownership, the "15 minute city "already existed, even in rural locations, when there were local shops, rural buses, local...
- polainm 9 min 35 sec ago
Plan for Motorists. The sound of a barrel being scraped for votes and a final slide into Daily Mail Britain. An arrogant, ignorant, racist country...
- RicCycleCoach 15 min 56 sec ago
even when someone is charged with dangerous driving, i'm still curious what it takes to obtain what is or was the maximum sentence (of 14 years). I...
- polainm 17 min 25 sec ago
This is war on motorists. Not letting them park wherever they want, whenever they want.
- Tom_77 1 hour 4 min ago
I find the vast majority of drivers pass me without issue. Almost as if safely overtaking a cyclist is not that difficult, requiring only a...
- BalladOfStruth 1 hour 17 min ago
It's also worth pointing out that (as someone of above average height, and therefore above average length arms), if I can even reach their car to...
- BalladOfStruth 1 hour 24 min ago
Again, front-end guy, so I'll defer to the knowledge of people who know better, but that "logic" (one line of code) can be handled by (for example)...
- Simon E 1 hour 44 min ago
Yes. Don't you? I occasionally use padded undershorts while on the bike but wouldn't want to wear them all day at work.
- Left_is_for_Losers 2 hours 5 min ago
Poor cycling, and poor driving. ...
Add new comment
28 comments
In fairness it is easy to see why a van or car driver who does not cycle (and so unfamiliar with the road surface etc) would be frustrated by the sight of cyclists ignoring what would otherwise appear to be a perfectly usable cycle lane. The A316 in Richmond has a similar problem - dedicated cycle lane which is not used by cylists who instead go onto the road (where there is not enough room to safely share with the other road users). Cyclists need to be mindful of this. I cycle 100s of km around London every week and the only area where I consistently see poor behaviour from fellow cylists is around Richmond Park.
The correct behaviour of drivers seeing cyclists not using infrastructure is to ask why. Cyclists tend to be self-serving - they want to travel with the minimum inconvenience and a suitable compromise between safety and speed - so if they all avoid the cycle infrastructure, the correct assumption is that the infrastructure is not fit for purpose, not that the cyclists are all imbeciles.
The biggest annoyance I have with motorists is that they just shout out comments and then drive off without wanting to actually engage in conversation to see what the facts are. They're just completely ignorant.
Through traffic ban in the park would solve it. Car park at each entrance. Roads through for bikes/park vehicles only.
If the park isn't a through route priory road will not be a rat run.
Make a statement. The park is not intended to be a through traffic route, people are welcome to drive to the park not through the park.
Most of the traffic on Priory Ln is actually coming from Clarence Ln, to avoid Roehampton Ln. Great big queue every day, squeezing through the width barriers at the bottom.
As Andrew Cudd is of Wimbledon, that's exactly what he would have been doing, drive around the A3 and then rat run along Priory Ln rather than use the A306/Roehampton Ln, the main A road [altogether now] "that has been provided for him".
So what we have is through traffic, eschewing the main road because using residential roads is quicker and then complaining that they lose 2 seconds behind s cyclist?
C0ckwomble?
Why has no-one called for through-traffic -free?
This is the answer in most cases.
Simplest. Cheapest. Most obvious. Most effective.
Keeps out he speedophile vermin.
Allows all ability cycling to happen.
A difficult win currently with the bike-lash still allowing foul-mouths.
In the meantime - no way should the lane be removed - a ludicrous suggestion, as is all the other expense and nonsense suggested by the council.
One bollard. Necessary rule change & legal prcedure...done.
Same through the park of course. Vehcles in to visit. Fine. Then out again.
Through traffic/short-cuts/rat-running. No.
^^ These. It is National Cycle Network Route 4 after all. Meanwhile, local riders, next time you filter past the queuing motor traffic blocking your smooth progress coming up to Roehampton Gate it might be poetic justice to tell the drivers to "use the A3".
Because the powerful and so-called 'Friends of Richmond Park' (who have been the source of every negative cycling-related story) love their Chelsea tractors and hate cyclists.
They're the ones who'll campaign to keep vehicle access. They won't allow anything that might mean yet more pesky cyclists use the Park.
Have I mentioned they hate cyclists yet?
I don't use that cycle lane for the reasons everyone else has already mentioned. But for the average angry motorist who hasn't been on a bike for 40 years, I can see why it drives them nuts to be stuck behind a load of cyclists next to the empty bike lane, which in their eyes there is nothing wrong with.
Drop the speed limit to 30kmh, and/or widen the road by 2 metres and chop the crap bike lane to the width of a normal footpath. Do a segregated bike lane properly or not at all otherwise it just confuses and annoys people.
I ride in Richmond Park and I use Priory Lane and I've had a few close passes there. What it needs are some big arse "sleeping policemen". The ones that if you hit them at more than 20mph, you take off. Very visible cameras and a 20mph speed limit. Signs up for car drivers saying "Share the road with cyclists". Leave the cycle lane, people do use it.
P.S. As a personal opinion it's nobber (no k). It's a slang reference to the male genitalia, nob.
it's knob with a k. It's a Germanic word, like knife and knackers (reference to the scrote-lifting story). Derived from a proto-Indo-European word *q'nb, meaning 'a person with genitalia emerging from the forehead', an epithet applied by early Bronze Age horsemen to charioteers who tried to run them off the beaten, rutted track and ride in the f'qin meadow provided.
That meaning of the word is spelled 'knob' (presumably as in door knob). 'Nob' without a 'k' means a very posh person (of course, the two frequently overlap!).
Does it follow that 'nob end' means 'posh person's penis'?
If you want to confuse them, just spell it with a K.
The path is there for people who want to use it - children, cyclists who are not confident - cyclists who just prefer to 'bimble' along slowly away from the traffic. However this path is simply not up to scratch for the majority of cyclists (was it ever meant to be?).
The issue here is not so much the path - it is Ignorance. Pure and simple.
Trouble is, you cannot argue with the wilfully ignorant. You take the path away, then will just find something else to complain about cyclists with.
<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebo..." width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
By the way the little brother of this turd is making a petition to make it compulsory for cyclists to have licence plates, so they are not sorry people.
An interesting family.
He makes quite an effort in the videos he's put up in the last few days supporting the petition, to say that it's about safety and that he doesn't hate cyclists.
This is him in June.
https://vid.me/gXMB
4 cameras and a 20mph zone would fix most of the issues given the users of Priory Lane.
I'd agree that families etc need the on path lane so not sure I'd remove that (it is a pretty poor quality alternative though).
I'd love to see some proper enforcement but it's pretty unlikely given the total lack of traffic enforcement everywhere else inside the M25 (edit - although I was pleased to see what looked to be a crack down on uninsured/unlicensed motoring over the last few weeks).
this just demonstrates why segregated cycle lanes aren't good for most cyclists; it just reinforces the "them vs us" culture. plus there's always a risk that eventually cyclists might be forced to use dedicated lanes where available. can we just paint the left side of roads blue instead? much cheaper and quicker and then maybe we could all learn to get along
This particular lane is neither segregated nor dedicated, and the blue paint idea has already been tried and seen to fail.
What is telling about that appalling 'cycle path' is that when the council spent loads of money improving the road surface for traffic, no money whatsoever was spent on the cycle path.
It truly is an appalling surface/path/accident waiting to happen (on the assumption that accidents haven't happened occured already)
I don't the path should be removed as the headline states. The path has purpose for children and less confident riders to access Richmond park. What is needed here is education that the path is not appropriate for riders doing 20mph+ and it is safer for everyone for them to use the roadway.
Annoyingly, neither do I - and I'm the bloke supposedly calling for it!
I said the path wasn't safe - and that's why many cyclists would choose to ride in the road (I also said it was short, didn't link anywhere and was bidirectional so some cyclists would have to cross just to get to and from it).
Looks like there's plenty of space for track(s). Also modal filter sounds like an ace idea. I personally don't think we should be asking for what the council seems to be suggesting - widen the lanes, drop the speed. That might work well for confident, fit riders - but not for kids and families.
I used to use that road daily when cycling to school, pre-shared path. Still had knobber drivers now and then.
is knobber/nobber spelt with a 'k' or just the 'n'. I've always wondered
TBH, you can probably spell it either way. With so much wonderful and fantastic invective language available, it's a shame to just use the f & c words. Roger Mellie's profanisaurus should be on recommended reading lists in every English-speaking school or college.
To update on Mr Cudd, Richmond Cycling have been advised that the Met's Roadsafe team are now handling the investigation. That probably surprised a few people who had assumed that Roadsafe no longer existed, I don't think anyone has heard a peep out of them for months.
There were never many peeps from them at the best of times.
"additional safety features to reduce vehicle speeds"
How about some more traffic cops, they can enforce not only speed limits, but if they choose to can also caution/fine any road user for the myriad other aspects of bad/dangerous driving, not just their speed.