A cyclist in the London Borough of Bexley has spoken out about a segregated cycle lane next to a primary school that is “blocked twice a day by parents parking illegally” during the school run, the council apparently dismissive of the issue suggesting “it doesn’t matter because it’s only twice a day”.
A local rider who passes the school by bike every day has taken the matter to the press after the council’s comments, Loretta Brackstone telling News Shopper the illegal parking is “an accident waiting to happen” and parents “don’t listen” when Gravel Hill Primary School has asked them not to park there.
The cycle lane on the busy A207 dual-carriageway is blocked twice a day, every day, during term time as parents drop off and pick up their kids by pulling into the cycling infrastructure.
“It’s just madness,” Ms Brackstone told the local press. “If a child gets out on the wrong side, they’re stepping straight into fast-moving traffic. The school has asked parents not to park here, but they don’t listen. The cycle lane is completely pointless if cars are just using it as a parking bay.”
When she contacted the council, the cyclist reported being met with a dismissive response, the local authority suggesting it “doesn’t matter because it’s only twice a day”.
Andrew Bashford, Head of Highways, Traffic & Infrastructure at Bexley Council, said the cycle route should be unblocked and parking should not be allowed, but went on to make the aforementioned point that the issues are only for short periods of the working week.
“That’s twice every day when an accident could happen,” the cyclist responded. “It just feels like a box-ticking exercise – a bit of paint on the road so they can say they’ve put in a cycle lane, but they don’t actually enforce it.”
Bashford insisted enforcement officers visit the site but suggested it is challenging due to stretched resources and enforcement would be carried out “when resources allow”. The council said it would consider a trial involving temporary barriers to attempt to deter illegal parking, but Bashford claimed bollards are “likely to generate other problems for road users”.
“Parents might opt to circle the area and ‘quickly’ drop off or pick up their children from the live traffic lane,” he said. “This could create congestion and lead to children rushing out into the road.”
Earlier this month, we reported that a headteacher of a primary school in Cumbria had expressed excitement at the prospect of new cycle lanes being built, one outside the school to enable more children and families to make safe and active journeys to and from the site. However, there was less excitement from local councillors, many claiming the proposed infrastructure would “shrink” space for motorists and slow down traffic, one calling the scheme “barking mad”.
Likewise in Exeter, school safety and active travel made headlines this month as cyclists in the Devon city said they were “underwhelmed and disappointed” after the local council revealed that there is no funding for new school traffic safety schemes in an area where a low-traffic neighbourhood initiative was controversially scrapped last year – and where children on bikes were hit by motorists flouting the traffic restrictions.

One councillor claimed that since the Active Streets scheme was scrapped, locals have regressed to “bad habits”, including “cycling on pavements” and “parking on zig-zag lines outside schools”.

56 thoughts on “Cycle lane outside primary school blocked twice a day by parents parking illegally, but council “dismissive” of cyclists’ concerns”
“Andrew Bashford, Head of
“Andrew Bashford, Head of Highways, Traffic & Infrastructure at Bexley Council, said the cycle route should be unblocked and parking should not be allowed, but went on to make the aforementioned point that the issues are only for short periods of the working week.”
.. but the exact periods when safe infrastructure is most needed! FFS.
This is akin to the argument
This is akin to the argument that someone in court for driving like an utter prick has somehow been caught in the act on the single occasion that they drove like that. Not that it was a routine occurance and that this was just bad luck/probability rearing its ugly head.
“My client had a momentary lapse in concentration when they were caught doing 73 in a 30 on their phone and they are very sorry (they got caught this time)”.
Then again, perhaps we are in the wrong. I’ll stop reporting bad passes because most of the time people pass me just fine so I will ignore the few every ride who don’t because hey, its only a few times a day. I mean, whats the harm eh.
This location is absolutely
This location is absolutely literally a stones throw from Bexley Civic Offices, which can just be seen in the background of the Newsshopper picture, and a few hundred metres from Bexley’s main Police station (RY) Romeo Yankee.
It would seem one or two of the vehicles pictured are on ZigZag markings, so should never be parked there at any time, for whatever reason.
If the parking blocked the flow of motor vehicles, I suspect action would be taken.
So when a child riding a bike
So when a child riding a bike does get hit by a moving vehicle, because the ‘safe’ cycle lane is blocked by a lazy motorist, the school’s response will be to ban cycling to school (we’ve seen this happen before, haven’t we, folks?)
“So when a child riding a
“So when a child riding a bike does get hit by a DRIVER…”
If we’re being pedantic,
If we’re being pedantic, doesn’t that imply that a driver will stop the car, get out and personally strike the child?
tootsie323 wrote:
No, because the driver is (supposedly) in control of the implement that hit the child and therefore is responsible. This is the whole reason there are press guidelines about not saying that someone was hit by a car but by a driver. After all, if Mr X shot you, would you be complaining to the police that you were shot by a gun or that you were shot by Mr X?
Also, if the person striking
Also, if the person striking a child is outside of their car they are no longer a driver, but a pedestrian. Seems pretty obvious to me!
mitsky wrote:
Its so weird, because I wrote that first and it just didn’t look right. Motonormativity again, clearly…
bollards bollards bollards
bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards bollards
Metal bollards*
Metal bollards*
Because the lazy, entitled ***** that park there would 100% knock down plastic ones to delivery thier little darling to within 3m of the school instead of 100m. Can’t have them walking near the dangerous roads full of cars (oh the irony).
Flex-posts ain’t bollards.
Flex-posts ain’t bollards. Accept no substitutes.
Sadly, agree with this * for
Sadly, agree with this * for now. And even further – throw enough motorists at the problem and even reasonably sturdy metal ones may get trashed or displaced, and as soon as there’s a gap someone will drive through it / park in it. So it needs bollard fairies to quickly fix any fallen heros from the War on the Motorist **.
* Even though if they “work” ultimately bollards become the enemy of pedestrians and cyclists – as more of them feel they can use the space. Sure, cars get damaged but … not their users. But people on foot and on bike can get injured.
** War from the Motorist, more like…
the little onion wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t quite catch that – can you repeat it, please? 😉
Didn’t they say something
Didn’t they say something about … wands? Would you know anything about them and their efficiency at keeping motor vehicles from where they shouldn’t be?
I couldn’t possibly comment…
I couldn’t possibly comment…
brooksby wrote:
BOLLLLLAAAAAAAAARDS
the little onion wrote:
Are you one of those foul-mouthed cyclists that needs their bike stolen at knifepoint?
So Bexley Council and Bexley
So Bexley Council and Bexley Police aren’t interested in dangerous illegal parking if it is only for short periods?!
Well the council needs to be
Well the council needs to be taken to court for negligence of duty for for enforcement of there duty of care
TBH if I was responsible for the road outside of the school I would have a fleet of lift and shift tow trucks parked up around the corner and as soon as a car pulled in to the cycle lane I would have the tow truck pull along side the car and lift the car
And screw the entitled drivers day by towing the car away right in front of them
I know that it would not take long for the drivers to get the message
Because it’s these same drivers who would be the first to be screening at the school and council if their children gets knocked down
.
“… as soon as a DRIVER
“… as soon as a DRIVER pulled in…”
The solution is obvious to me
The solution is obvious to me. Just allow enforcement from video evidence. What am I missing?
Just allow enforcement from
Just allow enforcement from video evidence. What am I missing?
It’s already ‘allowed’. How else did they penalise Sunak for his ‘no seatbelt political video’?
wtjs wrote:
That was video evidence for a moving traffic offence. This would be a civil matter enforced by local authorities. At the moment they can only enforce if witnessed by a council officer at the scene who could issue a ticket on the spot. As far as I can tell they are not allowed to give a ticket based on video evidence.
The police could possibly take action for unneccessary obstruction but this can only be done by a PC at the scene and not from video evidence.
As I’ve said in another thread I may have got this wrong as it’s complicated. Apparently it was made so in an attempt to decriminalise parking offences in 2016.
That was video evidence for a
That was video evidence for a moving traffic offence
Good point- I was forgetting I’m in Lancashire, the Land of the Free where you’re free to commit any moving traffic offence without fear of any nanny-state bureaucracy, especially if you’re in a big expensive car
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
As discussed in a different
As discussed in a different thread, they could technically enforce any parking on that part of the cycle lane that has zig zags based on video evidence. Whether they will seems to depend on the police force.
A perfect candidate for a
A perfect candidate for a “just a minute” approach.
https://www.google.com/search?q=just+a+minute+bike+lane&oq=justva+minute+cycle&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgcIBBAAGO8FMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGKIEGIkFMgcIBxAAGO8FMgoICBAAGIAEGKIEMgcICRAhGI8C0gEJMTE2ODdqMGo3qAIUsAIB8QXgjN6hksron_EF4IzeoZLK6J8&client=ms-android-motorola-gfw&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f82c78e4,vid:kDboYpYvT2o,st:0
I wonder if parents do this
I wonder if parents do this deliberately in order to protect their children from som of the inconsiderate and reckless users of the cycle lane?
Just a thought!
Or is it because they’re
Or is it because they’re inconsiderate and don’t give a toss about the rules when it comes to their own convenience?
Just no thought!
Better effort needed from you next time also.
They Cycle lanes not car
They Cycle lanes not car parks.inconaiderate? Yep those parents definitely are inconsiderate.
Advanced Driver wrote:
Since these parents are the inconsiderate and reckless users of the cycle lane their children obviously need protecting from their own parents. Have you considered phoning social services?
Advanced bollocks.
Advanced bollocks.
Want to make Britain better?
Want to make Britain better? P45s to the entirely of Councils. Ficktards every living one of them.
Awww – did someone get their
Awww – did someone get their planning application refused? 😉
Bigtwin wrote:
Thanks. As someone who does their best, along with many of my fellow councillors, you’re wrong, very wrong. There are some councillors who are there for their own purposes and who love to hear the sound of their own voices, but most of us are just trying to do our best in very difficult circumstances.
If you think you can do better, stand for election.
In my limited experience of
In my limited experience of dealing with elected councillors (as opposed to councils in the administrative sense, whose failings are often unfairly blamed on local councillors) in London, about 10% of them are ambitious folks trying to forge a political career, about 10% are interfering busybodies who just like the idea of lording it over their fellow residents and at least 80% are decent people who genuinely want to improve where they live and commit a huge amount of time and energy to doing so without any remuneration beyond expenses.
Bigtwin wrote:
Such a stuck record. Huge numbers of people would be less well off, dying, dead were it not for these Councillors and Officer you call “Ficktards”. I am sure you have your reasons but as someone who has worked across councils all of his working life these are some of the hardest working and intelligent individuals I know.
“only for short periods of
“only for short periods of the working week.”
Short periods exactly correlated with use of the cycle lane by the most vulnerable (children) given I expect it was explicitly built to enable cycling to school…
But that’s exactly when hard
But that’s exactly when hard-working parents need to drop off / pick up their kids (and/or are commuting)? Many (most?) of the children come to school by car – shurely you’re not suggesting we should make that “impossible” for them?
(Another “can’t get there from here” because a few can spoil it for the many, and it essentially requires people to vote to lose their own (short-term) convenience?)
Meanwhile at Kesgrave school…
Yes. Most of those kids
Yes. Most of those kids should be coming on foot, bicycle or bus. They as much as their parents need to learn car is not the only solution.
chrisonabike wrote:
Sort of:
There are at least 7 vehicles there double parked or on the kerb. But imagine what it would be like.
It’s far from perfect – no
It’s far from perfect – no doubt most of us could scrutinise and suggest improvements. (And as you point out that where it’s remotely possible and there’s the slightest reason people in the UK will still drive and park in a thoughtless manner).
But … the fact that it can be done, in the UK, and attracts enough support to persist is something. And all apparently without questions being asked in parliament about “what about the blind / old people?” and “what about ambulances not getting through?”
Yeah – I know – the “infra” in this place is mostly not new, and pretty low-key – but in other places plans to change far less seem to cause almighty dramas (“impossible” / “you’re ruining our lives” etc.)
There’s a couple of schools
There’s a couple of schools near us that have instituted regular (but not daily) bike buses and they have huge takeup – to the extent that some parents are having to travel away from school to get to the muster point because the kids want to get involved (you might argue that rather defeats the purpose, but at least it shows enthusiasm). It doesn’t stop some of the remaining drivers parking inconsiderately, but at least there are fewer of them.
Ms Brackstone told the local
Ms Brackstone told the local press. “The cycle lane is completely pointless if cars are just using it as a parking bay.”
Drivers. Which is still part of the problem, people blaming cars not the people who drive them.
This is motonormativity in spades, deliberately flouting infrastructure put in place to make others safe because of your own convenience as a driver. This is a societal problem more than a parking problem, but how to make people less selfish and arrogant?
The people won’t change if
The people won’t change if you don’t change things to accommodate them, but if you change things to accommodate them they may complain you’re ruining the things they rely on.
Very difficult. It’s got to be top-down AND bottom up in coordination *. Driving is so embedded in our systems (and so space- and resource- expensive) a bit of people power can’t change it. Or at least – any revolution needs support from councils and govenment.
But if those in power try to shift things too far too fast ** people may make that impossible and probably kick the leaders out. e.g. see the Bristol folks simply blocking some (rather small) road changes.
I believe that without really good alternatives (e.g. good quality separate cycle infra where needed, much better public transport) people simply won’t change. But that on its own is not sufficient either – plus of course it almost always requires “taking from the motorist” so again is hard to kickstart.
Presumably something like Chris Boardman’s tale of getting the Manchester boroughs to agree that “something needs done” *** then getting groups of local people to propose some (very simple, local) improvements which would help fix things? Then stitching those together into a “scheme” and putting that up for comment. But *not* as a “referendum” / this is what we will do. Then leveraging people’s local pride / envy e.g. “their street / area is getting this, why aren’t we?”
* Interestingly – that is what it took for the Dutch to change direction in the 1970s. Yes – they had a lot of people power / protest / direct action (including both the more “riot”-style but also constructive things). BUT it required getting some leaders on board (especially the minister of transport) who would work together with this.
** That is – almost any change at all…
** But not being prescriptive about what needed done; just that they agreed that they’d run out of money and meet none of their targets by keeping the status quo. And “more driving” would not solve things at all.
How to make people less
How to make people less selfish and arrogant. Probably will never happen. What we do need are politicians at all levels to make decisions based on facts. Lots of research out there. Decision makers need to understand the subject. Ignore minority that are big mouthed.
Just harness it. In European
Just harness it. In European countries selfish and arrogant people are demanding better cycling facilities (for their convenience) and probably showing aggro towards people walking in the cycle path. Plus politicians are accusing each other of not doing enough for cyclists (for their own benefit)…
(TBF in e.g. NL there’s broad agreement that active travel must get excellent provision, and there are still some folks who see potential in campaigning on behalf of
the motor industrydrivers).Its only twice a day, but its
Its only twice a day, but its 100% of the time children will be cycling to school!
“We can’t enforce parking
“We can’t enforce parking restrictions because then drivers will do even more dangerous things” (to paraphrase) does not seem like a wise response.
Unfortunately, they are not wrong. The school drop off is where you will see:
1) Driving along pavements;
2) Double parking;
3) Parking on corners;
4) Parking across pedestrian dropped curbs;
5) Across or even IN people’s driveways;
6) 7 point turns across main roads blocking traffic;
7) Stopping in the middle of the road (sorry, lane) and throwing doors open;
8) Picking up and dropping off on zig-zags at crossings;
9) Threatening behaviour if any of the above are commented on.
Never, ever suggest to a motorist that their parking might be less than ideal.
Never be a parent complaining about a pupil’s safety being harmed by another parent.
Do complain that you have to drive the kids to school because the roads are not safe.
Looks like a totally useless
Looks like a totally useless bike lane.
Not forgetting this genius
Not forgetting this genius who does a 700 METRE school run, then cuts me up to drive fully on to the pavement near parents and children walking to school.
https://youtu.be/R-dp-G6W8Jk
At least he neatly parked up
At least he neatly parked up by the other car parked on the footway… /sarcasm=off
No bother – the signage
No bother – the signage suggests cyclists should be on the left hand side through here anyway!!
That sign’s for a mandatory
That sign’s for a mandatory on-carriageway cycle lane. If it was indicating that it was a shared cycle/pedestrian space it would be a round sign with a person on the other side of the line. The bit between that and the other sign you can see a bit further up is being counted as main carriageway, even though, to appearances, it’s a
parking spacecontinuation of the shared space either side of it.My bad. Need to brush up on
My bad. Need to brush up on my TSRGD.
DfT has for decades supported
DfT has for decades supported through incompetence the use of pavements and cycle lanes as parking bays for the beleaguered UK driver. There is no Highway Code, it’s a carnagefest from 3 tonne wankpanzer drivers.