A cyclist riding with his child in a child bike seat in Perth, Scotland has posted footage of a confrontation with a coach driver who tells him that he “should be on the road”, despite a sign denoting that the path is shared use for cyclists and pedestrians shown just a few metres away from him.
Cyclists will never be safe. I was coming back from a Kidical (Play on Critical) Mass bike meeting in Perth, to support better local walking and cycling infrastructure. We had 2 close passes by 2 SUVs but on the way home, to be shouted at by a bus tour driver is unreal… pic.twitter.com/2U3QFC4skA
— Scott (@hamgammon) September 3, 2022
The cyclist, Scott, said that he was on his way back from a meeting to support better walking and cycling infrastructure, and was ironically close-passed by “2 SUVS” on the same journey that he was shouted at by the coach driver.
> Near Miss of the Day: Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt?
The coach is stopped and people are shown disembarking, and the cyclist can be heard talking to his child while ringing his bell. The driver can be heard saying “you shouldn’t be on the path” and then adds “you should be on the road.”
Scott replies: “Can you look at your sign and see that it’s a shared cycle path? The sign is right next to your bus mate.
“…learn how the Highway Code works.”
The clip led to a debate over the suitability of the shared use path and how to cycle around potentially vulnerable pedestrians, with elderly people shown disembarking from the coach.
Under the video, one person commented: “Not everyone will hear a bell (some people are deaf) Also just cos it’s a shared path doesn’t mean we get to carry on always. Pedestrians still have priority so in the situation in the vid you could argue that you should slow down even more, or even stop.”
Scott added: “I had my feet of the pedals and ready to stop for people coming of the bus and not seeing me. I also even tried to ring my bell in a quiet way. These are the things I think about cycling that drivers just don’t understand.”
He also told road.cc that he continued on the journey after the confrontation with no further issues, saying that the path provides “a nice ride along the side of the Tay.”
Back in 2016, an Edinburgh cyclist was threatened with a fine by police officers for riding on a shared use path. One of them allegedly told the cyclist he had committed a “ticketable offence”, and a complaint was made to Police Scotland about the conduct of the officers.
On cycling on shared use paths and facilities, Rule 63 of the Highway Code states: “When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.”
road.cc has contacted the coach tour provider for comment.
42 thoughts on “Coach driver tells cyclist with child he “shouldn’t be on the path”… right under a shared use path sign”
Cyclist is going at a very
Cyclist is going at a very low speed along there (5mph on time taken to pass coach length) and as shown when stopping at the ignorant drivers remarks, could stop at a dime at the speed. So I don’t know why people in the replies are stating he should have slowed down or stopped.
Any slower and control of the bike becomes less stable, especially with a child potentially changing centre of balance. His bell was being used to advise the person in front of his approach, especially as a narrow section AND someone else on the river side taking a picture who might just step back at the time.
“Not everyone will hear a
“Not everyone will hear a bell”
So would an Airzound be more appropriate?
Of course as a professional
Of course as a professional driver and with the thought of the safety of his passengers foremost in his mind, having first failed to find a spot to park to let them onto a pavement, will have or will be giving them advice to watch out for cyclists as he is helping them down onto a shared route.
To be fair, someone did
To be fair, someone did decide to paint “coach drop off point” in big yellow letters exactly where those coaches are, so it’s a legit place to disgorge a bunch of tourists. Shame the shared use path sign is a bit tiny. At least it’s mounted high enough so 9ft tall pedestrians (and penny farthing cyclists) don’t bang their heads on it. Safety first and all that.
Please complain to lochs.com
Please complain to lochs.com
Please complain to lochs.com
Please complain to lochs.com
Complete waste of time: we take your comments seriously, etc. etc. but we’re not going to tell you what we’ve done [which is nothing at all] because of GDPR. Anyway, there’s nothing to complain about- stupid people are allowed to say stupid things.
There is no point disputing with half-wits. Otherwise, eminently sensible cyclist completely in the right.
Coach driver dispels the myth
Coach driver dispels the myth that they are professional.
Shouted at for riding on the
Shouted at for riding on the road, shouted at for riding on the cycle path.
Ah, old people, obviously are
Ah, old people, obviously are incapable of independent thought and movement.
How about this old person sharing the lane?
https://youtu.be/5Cjd7YMlF-c?t=64
youve not encountered a Lochs
youve not encountered a Lochs & Glens coach tour before then
the driver was totally wrong to challenge in the way they did, however I totally understand where they were coming from in that situation where their responsibility is look after their passengers to the expense of others completely, and alot of those passengers arent really fully focussed on getting out of a coach, let alone getting out of a coach and sharing the same space with a very slow cyclist passing by at the same time
lets face it that shared path isnt the greatest way to share space between people cycling and coach tours dropping lots of people out of coaches is it ?
As it has been a shared path
As it has been a shared path for at least 4 years, you would have thought any responsible coach driver would be aware of that and looking along the path for cyclists / warning his passengers.
However the same road also has cycle lanes painted in the road so having both methods of transport along the same route won’t help in arguments like the one that happened.
Awavey wrote:
There was a tragic death of a cyclist in Leicester a few years back where the cyclist was doored into the parh of a car when a passenger exited a black cab into the road – I recall there was a court case and the taxi driver shared held a level of responsibility for the death as they had a duty of care of passengers exiting the vehicke safely.
Since passengers are offloaded to a shared cycle path, perhaps there should be an obligation on the driver to inform their passengers to be aware although i dint think the bus driver waa in this case.
My view is that the cyclist was cycling carefully and courteously using the bell correctly to inform pedestrians of their presence and not using it to barge them out of the way. I hate using my bell as it feels that sometimes pedestrians will read it as a ‘get out of my way’ rather than to alert of presence. I tend to prefer freewheeling a good distance (>5m) behind and matching their pace until the path is wide enough for a safe/non-startling pass – my squeaky disc breaks can be a blessing too in providing a subtle alert of my presence and audible signal of a slow reduction in speed with no urgent need to pass.
Hate it when cars drive too close behind so I try and apply the same logic when behind pedestrians and provide space.
Comes as no surprise as I
Comes as no surprise as I frequently get glared at or comments fired at me while riding on designated cyclepath/shared use pavements despite clear signage stating “share with care”.
Now I don’t have a bell because basically no one hears bells anyway so I call out a polite “excuse me” as I approach and a cheery “thank you” as I pass but still get shouts of “get on the road” from ignorant pedestrians.
Perhaps we need a law preventing pedestrians from wearing earpods so they can actually hear us coming when we are on shared use paths.
I’ve had this experience –
I’ve had this experience – people taking umbrage and me pointing at the “shared use” sign … but of course by that point it’s too late, people are in fear / anger mode so it’s not the time for reasoned discussion.
I don’t agree with hearing laws (because deaf people). I think it’s very sensible to “encourage” this in all road users (e.g. as part of children’s education). When learning to drive I was schooled on winding down the window and listening for other cars when not clearly sighted at junctions / mist / fog.
Not sure if the makers of tech could be encouraged to take this into account too before we go full augmented reality and have to worry about people not seeing us again (unless we’ve installed an app…)?
It’ll be a generation-time change but much better to start doing a sensible job of marking out separate pedestrian and cycle space and just reduce conflict. In a very clear and UK standard way(!) so everyone can learn. Then it’s just about managing the junctions / conflict points. Sensible solutions apply e.g. where there are very few pedestrians and not many cyclists (e.g. several miles between two places in the countryside) just build cycle tracks like the Dutch do. That’s one of the few circumstances when shared space can work well.
As someone who tries to keep
As someone who tries to keep up with Planning, I’d want more than that.
I’d want all new Housing Developments to be LTNs, and designed so that motor vehicles park off the much narrower roadway – preferably a la Netherlands in parking spaces fitted between trees.
I’d also like some simplified rules for segregated cycleways – if there is no specification meeting physically segregated alternative to the road for both pedestrians and cyclist, then the default speed limit is 20mph inside community boundaries, and 40mph everywhere.
I have my tin whistle to hand for when there is some wind.
Could be used as a training
Could be used as a training video for how to sensibly and courteously ride on shared pavements, I honestly can’t imagine how the guy could have done it better.
https://twitter.com/hamgammon
https://twitter.com/hamgammon/status/1566425752526094337
I have a shared cycle path
I have a shared cycle path near me – ride on it and invariably there’s at least one sourpuss who glowers at you and tells you you should be on the road, no matter how sensibly you may be riding along. Ride on the adjacent road instead of the path and…well, you know the rest.
Some people just love an
Some people just love an opportunity to have a go at someone else, safe in the knowledge that they’re probably not going to get much of a reaction back.
It’s funny; I get far more of this nonsense when I’m out on my road bike wearing proper kit than I do when I’m riding a my pub bike wearing a hoodie.
I recently got shouted at for
I recently got shouted at for passing a woman walking her dog saying I shouldn’t be cycling on the pavement.
This ‘path’ was the Beryl Burton Cycleway through Harrogate. Christ its even named after a cyclist and is covered in cycling signs all over yet some people just hate it no matter where we go.
Yelled at a few weeks back
Yelled at a few weeks back for “riding on a footpath” which was in fact a dedicated cycle path in Dulwich; when it was pointed out to the ranter that he was in fact standing on top of a 5×3 foot painted representation of a bicycle he looked nonplussed for a minute then claimed it meant no entry for bicycles.
Dulwich, this Saturday. I’ve
Dulwich, this Saturday. I’ve been called a “disgusting person” just because I pointed out this is not “just a pavement” but a shared path.
Coincidence?
he was in fact standing on
he was in fact standing on top of a 5×3 foot painted representation of a bicycle he looked nonplussed for a minute then claimed it meant no entry for bicycles
There have been a number of these anti-cyclist misrepresentations lately- we had that one where an adjacent shopkeeper accosted the cyclists locking bikes to something clearly designed for the purpose, and claimed that the picture of a bike meant not for bikes. Lancashire Constabulary thinks the ‘advanced stop line’ is the one right by the traffic light pole and anything in the HC referring to ‘stop line’ in connection with motorists really means the line further away from the lights- they cite the large picture of the cyclist in the box as ‘evidence’ for this view. The dodge here is that if the vehicle has crossed the true ASL when the lights turn red, it is legally entitled to continue across the true stop line. A minor point, but you’d think the police would be able to understand it.
I have a personal favourite
I have a personal favourite from a while back: a taxi driver skinned me at a roadworks contraflow in central London where there was a “Narrow lanes do not pass cyclists” sign. When I took him to task for his behaviour he claimed that the sign was actually addressed to cyclists, i.e. it actually meant “Do not pass, cyclists”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The bus driver is wearing a
The bus driver is wearing a Bluetooth headset so presumably in between ranting at cyclists over safety on paths he’s busy making / receiving phone calls whilst driving a bus load of passengers.
It’s stating the obvious I
It’s stating the obvious I know, but this really is a poor shared path, and consequently a poor place to drop off.
It really is. I live in Perth
It really is. I live in Perth and this was never designed as a shared path. It was an afterthought, a knee jerk quick fix when the council in their wisdom removed the cycle lanes on part of the street to make room for car parking spaces. But at this part of the street the original cycle lanes are still there along with the shared space pavement. So whilst the cyclist is clearly in the right, the driver may have been confused as coaches have dropped off tourists at this spot for years in designated bus stops, and the original cycle lanes are still apparent and pass by the drivers side of the bus.
The whole area is in a poor state of repair. I tripped on a broken paving slab there just this morning. There is too much street clutter and the signage is poor and confusing for folk as pedestrians or on a bike.
The real culprit here is the council and I’ve highlighted this to them this week as I’ve been banging on about it for years. Another irony is that they’ve installed loads of those bike racks shaped like cars to highlight how many bikes spaces a car takes up. They even installed one opposite this area!
I had to rotate the image !
I had to rotate the image ! (I think is is some back end server issue)
Thanks. You can clearly see
Thanks. You can clearly see the bike lane on the road but the pavement is still shared space. It’s a mess!
Soozip wrote:
Nope, but I can see that some idiot councillor has had a line painted about 0.5M from the kerb though 😉
What I fail to comprehend is
What I fail to comprehend is why so much time and space has been occupied with responding to the clearly sad nutter, sitting at home deriving pleasure at apparently riling cyclists while pretending to be ‘a cyclist himself’.
wtjs wrote:
You’re right, of course, and I apologise for my part in it.
Anyway, Lancashire police… 😉
Jeez people, I thought you
Jeez people, I thought you knew better – never wrestle a pig.
I live in Perth. This was
I live in Perth. This was inevitable on this street because the real culprit here is the local council who, in their wisdom, removed the cycle lanes from part of this street to make room for car parking spaces. So a quick fix was to make the pavement shared space even though it is entirely unsuitable as it is poorly maintained, has loads of street clutter with confusing signs.
However the problem is compounded because at the part of the street where this altercation took place, the original bike lanes (on the road) remain in place along with the shared space pavement. See photo below. You can clearly see the bike lanes still in situ on the outside of the bus stop and then the very small shared space sign. It really could be held up as an exemplar of how NOT to design something. I’ve been banging on about it for years and have highlighted this incident to local councillors in the hope that they make appropriate, clear changes.
The bloke cycling is absolutely in the right but the shared space sign is quite small and, because these tour buses have stopped at this point for years, using designated stopping areas, the driver may have been confused because the original cycle lanes, that pass by the drivers’ side, remain in place. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that the coach driver saw the original bike lanes and wondered why the chap was cycling on a pavement not fit for the purpose.
A further sweet irony is the council installing loads of bike parks shaped like a car to try to persuade more folk to cycle. One used to be only a few metres from this street, outside the Council offices before it was relocated elsewhere.
We could add, what sort of
We could add, what sort of vile person expects a parent to risk their children on the road just to satisfy the offended sensibilities of an inattentive bus driver (proven by their failure to observe signs and driving while using a phone, albeit hands free, which is still a proven distraction).
It’s a weird one.
It’s a weird one.
That road corridor is between 15m and 20m wide for nearly all of the way through Perth afaics from Google Maps.
That is ample room for 2-3 lanes, a 3-4m wide bidirectional cycle path, 2 x generous footways, and parking down one side of the road. Plus straight through the Inch by the river,
Are the Council as dim as they seem? Aren’t they supposed to be developing a River Tay long distance cycle / walking route?
(No I don’t have anything like that locally either, except for loads of former pit railways going to lots of places.)
‘ Aren’t they supposed to be
‘ Aren’t they supposed to be developing a River Tay long distance cycle / walking route? ‘
They have done. It goes all the way from that tree over there to this tree over here, but be careful, it gets a bit narrow…after all, we can’t move the river can we!
Yes, but we can improve the
Yes, but we can improve the surface of ‘footpaths’ (translate to Scottish parlance).
When I had a dig around it sounded a bit sustrans, complete with “light touch”, limited surface work, and features at land ownership boundaries that sound like an obstacle course.
I would love to hear an on the ground report that this is not true.
There’s another thing
There’s another thing niggling me.
I complained to my council that they had installed a shared use path (edit: corrected from auto-incorrected ashamed use path) where the only indication it was shared use was a painted arrow on the road.
Having complained vigorously about various inadequacies of its design, the Highways Department declared that the implementation was entirely legal.
Now I wouldn’t trust SMBC Highways as far as I could throw one of their bent and battered Orcas, but the implication is that a shared use path is shared use by the council declaring it to be so, not because of any signage.
Well I got shouted at today
Well I got shouted at today by another cyclist! They told me it’s broad daylight and I didn’t need flashing lights on.
I agree I shouldn’t need lights in the day, but with the advent of DRL’s on vehicles, you’re now in the minority as a road user without them. So, not wishing to start a debate, I’m sticking with lights and I respect his choice not to use them.
He said this just as he plunged into a tunnel of trees, casting a shadow so dark it almost obscured a Land Rover!
If cars need daylight running
If cars need daylight running lights and they are <===this big====> why wouldn’t a motorist need them to see something <©>?