MailOnline and its readers have had a collective meltdown after footage shot by a car passenger showed a cyclist riding on the main carriageway of a road in Bournemouth, as he is entitled to do by law, next to a cycleway that is still under construction.
The newspaper also originally claimed – wrongly – that the facility, on the A347 Whitelegg Way, is a “£150m cycle lane scheme” when in fact it is just one aspect of a £102 million initiative aimed at encouraging sustainable travel, including by public transport.
The headline to its article yesterday said, “Motorists’ fury as cyclists IGNORE £150m cycle lane scheme in Bournemouth and pedal along the road – forcing drivers into oncoming traffic.”
> 10 of the most hysterical anti-cycling Daily Mail headlines
That figure has now been quietly corrected to £1.12 million… still, what’s £148.8 million between friends?
Meanwhile, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council has said that the cycleway may have been blocked by barriers that had been blown over by the wind, and that parts of it are still being construction and permanent signage is not yet in place.
The car passenger, quoted in the MailOnline article, said: “I just couldn’t believe it – the situation definitely had me swearing a bit. It’s infuriating.
“The road is already narrow with no room for drivers to let emergency vehicles pass and you have this cyclist ignoring the designated lane.
“There were four to five cars in front of me and they were having to avoid the cyclist as well as oncoming traffic.
“Some people have said that parts of the cycle way is still unfinished but it was definitely open and safe to use.
“My frustration is with the local council for the money spent on these cycle lanes when the whole infrastructure of the town needs urgent attention.
“The whole of Bournemouth is turning into cycle lanes and there’s no room for cars anymore. I hardly ever see cyclists in the bike lane.
“It’s hard enough for the emergency services as it is without the roads being like this,” she added. “The council just doesn’t seem to listen to the public.”
That claim is incorrect. In fact, BCP Council held a public consultation on the proposals, which were viewed by 27,000 people with 2,500 completing surveys.
As far as Whitelegg Way is concerned, 56 per cent of respondents backed the proposals, with 44 per cent opposed, according to a report published by the council.
One potential reason for the cyclist taking to the main carriageway – perfectly legally, since there is no obligation for bike riders to use cycle lanes where they are provided – can clearly be seen in the video, with the path partially blocked by barriers.
A spokesperson for BCP Council told MailOnline: “We don’t know why the cyclist chose to ride on the road rather than use the cycleway along Whitelegg Way.
“Road work barriers blew over during the Christmas period obstructing sections of the cycleway so this may have been the reason; they have now been cleared.
“The sustainable travel improvements along Whitelegg Way are still under construction and permanent cycle route signage has not yet been installed.
“Cyclists may not be aware that the cycle lane is now open. We will review the temporary signage in place to ensure it is clear that the lane is operational.”
The spokesperson continued: “One of the biggest concerns stopping people from cycling is their safety when using busy roads. Evidence shows that people will use bike infrastructure once it is built.
“A study found that in cities where bike infrastructure was added, cycling increased up to 48 per cent more than in cities that did not add bike lanes.
“Whilst there is no legal obligation for people to use cycle lanes, they are separated from traffic and therefore much safer for people cycling rather than using the same lane as traffic.
“We encourage people to use cycle lanes wherever possible and follow the Highway Code rules for cyclists. We will be carrying out campaigns around road user and cycle lane etiquette in due course, once the works along the route are complete.
“The Transforming Cities Fund investment in infrastructure on Whitelegg Way should not be viewed in isolation – it is the first section of a 13km walking, cycling and public transport route that will link north Poole with Christchurch, providing residents with more choice on how to travel to work, education and local amenities, as well as easing road congestion and improving air quality.
“Once the entire route is constructed then the benefits of the Whitelegg Way section will be fully realised.”
Regarding claims that the new road layout impeded the emergency services, they said: “The carriageway on Whitelegg Way is between 6.4m and 6.6m wide, adhering to current national standards set by the Department for Transport.
“It is able to be used safely by all vehicles, including emergency services vehicles, and has undergone, and will continue to undergo, a number of independent road safety audits.
“The Transforming Cities Fund programme team are working with the emergency vehicle operators and have not received any objections about Whitelegg Way.
“We recommend drivers follow the Highway Code when they encounter emergency vehicles using flashing lights,” citing Rules 219 to 225 of the Highway Code.
BCP Council and Dorset Council were awarded £79 million in March 2020 from the Department for Transport’s Transforming Cities Fund for the South East Dorset City Region, with additional funding from other sources bringing the total to £102 million.
The money from central government was provided under Tranche 2 of the TCF, as part of the final allocation of funding to local authorities under the initiative.
While building a 78km network of six high-quality segregated cycling and walking routes does form an important part of the plan, that certainly does not account for all of the money.
Other aspects of the successful bid for the South Dorset City Region include improved network management (eg bus priority at key traffic signal locations, and an HGV traffic management system at Longham Bridge to help avoid bridge strikes), plus improvements to bus interchanges and bus infrastructure, as well as smart ticketing and improved facilities including cycle parking at local schools.
> Judge orders council that scrapped safe cycling and walking route to reopen consultation
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
67 thoughts on “MailOnline and its readers have meltdown over video of cyclist riding perfectly legally on road”
The video shows proper
The video shows proper fencing up next to the path and fallen barriers. At the end, the cycle lane seems to stop making people join the roundabout.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that people choose not to use it when it looks unfinished.
Over 3700 comments…
If you want to see the worst
If you want to see the worst anti-cycling comment, change the filter to show most liked, and vice versa if you want to see the most sensible comment.
The Daily Mail – never let
The Daily Mail – never let facts get in the way of bashing an ‘out-group’
I’m actually quite pleased
I’m actually quite pleased that readers of the Daily Mail hate me. I’d be worried about my life choices if they didn’t.
That’s a fair point you made
That’s a fair point you made there. Can’t disagree TBH.
To be fair, DM will go with
To be fair, DM will go with any story that drives views.. they aren’t picky.
Is that another super power I
Is that another super power I’ve got? The ability to force drivers into oncoming traffic.
Along with the ability to
Along with the ability to “appear out of nowhere” ?
ktache wrote:
Our chief weapon is surprise… surprise and fear… fear and surprise… our two weapons are fear and surprise… and ruthless efficiency (assuming the drive chain is in good nick)… Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…
I’d like them to pick up on
I’d like them to pick up on why there’s no motorists using the M49 junction that cost £50 million for the wonderful Highways England to build: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-53808525
Since you mention the Daily
Since you mention the Daily Mail, can I just mention that most other brands, such as Andrex, Cushelle, Nouvelle and most supermarket own-brands, are all delivered unused.
Funny how the video doesn’t
Funny how the video doesn’t show the beginning of the cycle lane which is likely blocked.
Anyway, that road is half a mile long and slightly downhill. The amount of fuss being made it makes it sound like they were behind a turtle for 10 miles.
Birmingham had two much
Birmingham had two much publicised bike lanes put in a couple of years ago, one is on my normal commute route home. It did take over 12 months to finish and actually caused me to mix with cars as they closed my normal bus lanes routes. Anyway I remember someone leaning out of their car moaning I wasn’t on them. I stated they weren’t open yet because at the ends they still had barriers blocking the entrance / exits. “yes they are” came the grunted reply in a huff.
PS: I still don’t use them as although they are good in the main there are sections were they become shared instead of dedicated with Street Furniture as well. So my average speed along that stretch would be 5-6mph down if I did and they still have the bus lanes which apart from the occaisonal bus, are empty.
As far as I can tell, the
As far as I can tell, the video shows drivers being delayed by exactly zero seconds because a cyclist chose not to use the half-finshed cycle lane that was blocked by blown-over barriers and which abruptly spits riders out with no protection onto the roundabout anyway (the place where segregated infrastructure is probably most useful).
Am I missing something?
OnYerBike wrote:
The words ‘Daily Mail’?
OnYerBike wrote:
Perhaps the fact that the article promised cyclists plural and I only saw one, the fact that the van in the film close passes the cyclist on the approach to a junction or the simple fact that if we don’t cut our reliance on the internal combustion engine we’re going to destroy the planet. Unfortunately maths, the Highway Code and Climate change are not concepts familar to a Daily Heil journalist
IanMK wrote:
HAHAHAHA look everyone, he said “journalist”
That brings to mind those
That brings to mind those self important clods making worthless content for their utube channel and make a nuisance of themselves at government facilities, filming for no discernible reason other than to provoke a reaction, whereby they announce themselves as a journalist researching a story…
OnYerBike wrote:
Yup – somebody coming onto this very site to complain about how that cyclist wasn’t making a ‘real’ journey or was being a recreational cyclist and should have their bike impounded and sold. Or some such sh!t…
I expect that Garage D’Ordure
I expect that Garage D’Ordure will be along in a few minutes to do just that.
brooksby wrote:
Nope… don’t miss that at all 😀
If you were to come towards
If you were to come towards where that pic is taken, it ends taking you either on a long detour, or doubling back on yourself around barriers, to then try and join traffic, if you want to turn right at the roundabout. Riding away from photographer, if turning right, you either have to dice with drivers when the lane ends, or press the beg button, walk round the roundabout, cross a road, then another, then join the carriageway to start riding. Safer to ride on the carriageway, especially as this way is slightly downhill, and 25mph+ is easily acheivable. It ws a 40 limit, now 30
Quote:
So they weren’t able to just wait until the road was clear?
I was hoping that the woman
I was hoping that the woman interviewed was the passenger and doesn’t actually hold a license. That being the case she might not have realised that avoiding hitting stuff is a basic requirement.
brooksby wrote:
But how would they do that while sticking to the minimum speed limit?
brooksby wrote:
makes me facking laugh.
YES YOU HAVE TO AVOID RUNNING PEOPLE OVER YOU TIT
The Daily Mail commentators
The Daily Mail commentators are losing their tiny minds at this, so you can see why they keep publishing this nonsense.
A. Moron wrote:
Imagine being so easily upset that you swear and become infuriated at a person riding a bike somewhere you don’t like. Embarrassing.
For anyone interested in what
For anyone interested in what’s actually planned the link here actually covers most of it (except for the money side). 850m (!) of pure motor aggravation. I’m not a local so I’m just going on what I see but it looks… OK? Might need to check the allocation of money as the scheme involves road resurfacing, junctions, lights and other improvements for drivers (as well as bus infra).
Location here – possibly what might have been historically “local” roads which have joined to become a de-facto ring road. It’s clearly busy and old version had minimal footpaths which had the “shared space” sign slapped on them at the south end. After which these disappeared, although there is a quieter road which runs parallel to the main one. So apparently a genuine gain for cycling and walking.
Nice words by the council:
Must be those bloody cyclists disconnecting the travel infrastructure during the night.
Quibbles: a) how much of the cash is actually going to cycle / walking infra and how much on other modes – including resurfacing / lights / new signs for cars? b) Does this actually connect to other bike infra? Let’s see the junction treatments. c) Quality – I’ve only got their artist’s impression to go on but in that the cycle track looks a bit close to traffic / has no forgiving kerbs / looks as if carriageway drains onto cycle track.
Pet peeve – it always grates when buses are described as “sustainable transport”. Did they fit pedals?
Not a defacto ringroad at all
Not a defacto ringroad at all. However, the airport, where I work is near there, and the road is busy due to the industrial estate here, and it’s also one of the main routes into Bournemouth from Ferndown and further away from A31 for those not wishing to use A338. They’ve done such a bad job though, what could have been great, and I supported it, isn’t
Pyro Tim wrote:
Thanks for local info. Sounds like another common issue, the “what was initially planned != what was agreed after consultation != what was actually done”.
I wonder what would happen if we actually had, y’know, standards for this across the UK? Like we do (mostly…) with roads? Maybe there’d be less “designed by someone who’d never seen a bicycle” / hopeless compromises? Maybe we wouldn’t have dozens of different incomprehensible, inconvenient or plain dangerous “bright ideas”? Maybe we’d not have paths suddenly giving up because there were a few loud voices against or it seemed too much effort to do properly?
Our UK laissez-faire approach here definitely isn’t helping. Although what gets said is “we should not impede the local authorities doing this in the most appropriate manner” what we get is “Who cares? If you really fight about it you can have rubbish in several years’ time”.
I raised this with the TCF
I raised this with the TCF team. The challenge for them is that they are trying to provide safe links for timid and new cyclists, who would perhaps be prepared to stop and beg at crossings. Firstly, in answer to an early question, the works are not yet finished, but also :
“If you are looking at cycling on the carriageway to go north, then that is the move of a confident cyclist. The drainage kerb finishes 30m south of Northbourne Roundabout. That should give enough time for a confident cyclist to get across to the offside lane.
However, if you are concerned about that manoeuvre, the crossing is set to instant demand for cyclists/pedestrians. So you could come off onto the shared cycleway, stop for a second to press the push button, then divert off the crossing onto the carriageway with the cars safely stopped behind the stopline at the lights. ”
This takes you to a footpath with no cycling. If planning on exiting cycle lane to turn right at Northbourne roundabout, it is in reality much less than 30m, but about 3 car lengths, to get across 2 lanes, while reading the roundabout. Nigh on suicide
Another pet annoyance!
Another pet annoyance! Councils and their designers – probably through frank ignorance – seem only to think of cyclists as either a) like pedestrians suddenly put on wheels – so slow, nervous and actually happier to regularly stop and push or b) something like an indestructable scrambler bike. I guess the latter is their view of “competent cyclists” but from the designs this comes across more like “these people are risk-insensitive and don’t follow the rules anyway, so we’ll give them an access point back onto the road and on their own heads be it”.
What we should have – as proved by such an approach working in several countries – is c) neither pedestrians nor cars but cyclists. These are ordinary humans of all ages / abilities who are as vulnerable as pedestrians and need protection from motor vehicles but can comfortably proceed at 8-12 mph with some ranging above 20mph. They need good surfaces (more than motor vehicles) and also to be able to keep a moderate speed (again more important than for pedestrians or cars). They have their own space requirements e.g. path widths, turn radii and and access points (e.g. can get a mobility bike / bike with trailer through). They are less of a threat to pedestrians than motor vehicles but are not suitable for mixing with them in most places. Their infrastructure shouldn’t rely on motorists getting it right for their safety (so e.g. crossings and junctions should have excellent sight lines so cyclists can assess if it’s safe and at least ATM in UK “cyclists have priority” ideas should be used very carefully).
That’s why we could really do with a Boardman / Burnham combo even here in Edinburgh.
I always thought it was the
I always thought it was the case that if you are going at an average speed of less than 18mph, the recommendation is that you should use the cycle lane if one is provided. As the cyclist in the video was clearly doing less than 18mph, and had chosen to ignore an immaculate new cycling lane, it’s hardly surprising that he risked the ire of the Daily Mail readers, who rightly cannot understand why millions of pounds is being spent in the name of “active travel” when people don’t seem to use it.
As keen female cyclist Claire wrote succinctly in the comments (with 985 “up” arrows):
“As a cyclist who uses cycle paths it enrages me too and helps to fuel the hatred motorists have for cyclists. It seems to be a middle aged white man every time in my experience. I dont understand it myself it can only be to annoy motorists.”
Which eloquently underscores everything I’ve been writing recently. Attitudes matter, and I don’t appreciate people like the cyclist in the video making life more dangerous for me when I go for a ride.
Hello. We’ve been expecting
Hello. We’ve been expecting you.
Attitudes matter eh? And who says irony is dead.
I don’t appreciate “people” like the “journo” responsible for this rabid ill-researched, factually inaccurate, clickbait nonsense making life way more dangerous for vulnerable road users every day.
Whilst I’m sure
NigelNick Freeman“Claire” is genuinely a cyclist rather than an angry keyboard warrior pretending to be something they are not, her apparent prejudices do somewhat cast her reliability as an impartial witness into doubt in my view.Besides, as we all know, cyclists don’t just do it to “annoy motorists” – where’s the challenge in that? – like shooting large fish in a small barrel.
It’s town planners, triathletes, the Illuminati and Lizard People that we’re really after.
The invoice for our collective time providing your therapy is in the post BTW
I don’t appreciate people
I don’t appreciate people spreading garbled disinformation like “if you are going at an average speed of 18mph, the recommendation is that you should use the cycle lane if one is provided.”
mdavidford wrote:
If you look carefully, you’ll find it here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/made-up-sh!t-that-isnt-in-the-Highway-Code
I think from memory the speed
I think from memory the speed of 18 mph came from a judge in a court case who deemed that it was a reasonable speed for a person on a bicycle to ride on the road as opposed to using a cycle lane. This was dependant on a useable cycle lane being available that was not compromised by obstructions. I cannot recall the exact details but gained an impression that the judge was trying to interpret the highway code in a helpful manner to the cyclist at the time, like many memories this latter part may be false but grocery shopping awaits and time is too short to spend hours researching details.
If it is the case of Cadden,
If it is the case of Cadden, it was not that you should use the cycle lane at under 18mph, it was that his speed (said to be around 20mph) would have been excessive for the cycle lane. Additionally, he would have had to cross a carriageway with a 50mph limit (twice) to use that lane. The judge noted that in the light traffic, any delay to motorists was transitory. The case did not set a precedent, however, and the case was judged on its own merits.
However, I note that DfT guidance set design speed limits (although the copy I inspected at the time of accumulating that ‘knowledge’ was draft at the time). Design speed limit is not the user’s speed limit, but that the infrastructure should be deemed safe for use at that limit. In the same way, dual carriageways have a design speed of 120kph. You’re not expected to drive (or cycle) at that speed.
From this account:
As for whether you should use the cycle lane: the Highway Code recommends using infrastructure where it is available, while recognising that it is not always suitable or safe to do so. In any case, the right to use any part of the carriageway remains in place unless local restrictions or road type (motorway class) dictate otherwise. Some consideration for other road users comes into play, but the fact that a motorist might have to slow down is not an automatic contraindication.
Thank you for your reply and
Thank you for your reply and research I know it was a few years ago and standards (or guidance notes) have been introduced the latest being LTN 1/20 sadly not always followed. Although I remain hopeful that designs and new infrastructure introduced by local authorities are changing largely for the better but at a incredicably slow pace. More sadly as being shown by Leicestershire County Council is that if so minded they have the option of ignoring any guidance or need to follow a duty of care and then deem anything they build as ‘safe’ regardless of the facts ? I love to be able to cycle on a dedicated path or lane but many are more dangerous than the road and are not properly designed for cyclists (or walkers).
GMBasix wrote:
I’m seeing a broken link…
Read the URL
Read the URL
It’s because it’s a fake link
It’s because it’s a fake link for comedic purposes.. note the wording ‘highway code/made-up-shit-that-isnt-in-t…’
Garage at Large wrote:
Ah, welcome back! How was your Christmas and New Year? What with the mild weather and the festive / virus-avoidance-induced quiet on the roads it was a great time to get out and about. It’s always pleasant to get cheerful responses from the folks you see too.
Got nice and cold now, perfect for some swift distance riding (mind the ice)!
It was fantastic thanks Chris
It was fantastic thanks Chris, although the interceeding period between 20-30 December was a fallow period regarding cycling, and it’s amazing how quickly fitness tapers off with a combination of mince pies and lack of exercise!
I’ve been out a few times since the new year (in fact there’s a photo in ‘pictures of my bike’) and have also taken up jogging for some weight-bearing exercise, so hope to get back in shape soon.
Hope your festive period was good too and you’re looking forward to 2022, I certainly am! Think COVID will become endemic this year and we’ll just have a once a year jab, will be good to put restrictions and shut downs behind us.
In Ontario Canada we have
In Ontario Canada we have cycle lanes. But there no law saying we have to use them I don’t I ride in the road legally Roads are faster. Shorter route Yes I own a car and a motorcycles
Mybike wrote:
There’s no law saying you have to use them in the UK either, but then again there’s also no law against getting annoyed at cyclists riding slowly down the road next to a perfectly functioning cycling lane.
Garage at Large wrote:
There’s no law saying you have to use them in the UK either, but then again there’s also no law against getting annoyed at cyclists riding slowly down the road next to a perfectly functioning cycling lane either.— Mybike
Indeed. However there are laws about following on from your annoyance / anger and abusing / threatening and assaulting people. Sensibly these have fairly high standards so casual insults don’t generally trigger these. There are also a range of penalties for behaviour on the road likely to pose a threat to others or indeed actually causing injury or death. I wouldn’t mind them being more widely enforced, possibly with longer suspension of licences…
You sad twat.
You sad twat.
Comment of the day! (Nigel
Comment of the day! (Nigel Fromage is the village idiot on this site. Every village has one.)
Dredging the trolling barrel
Dredging the trolling barrel here
The only cycle paths in my
The only cycle paths in my neighbourhood are shared use paths with pedestrians and as such, are completely inappropriate and unsafe to ride any faster than the speed of a jogger, so around 10 kph. They also don’t follow the road system, so may not go where you want to go. Obviously, the Dutch system of separate cycle only paths, that follow existing vehicular roads are the way to go, for the sake of both cyclists and motorists.
“The whole of Bournemouth is
“The whole of Bournemouth is turning into cycle lanes and there’s no room for cars anymore.” Sounds good to me.
I wonder if Kate Dennett went
I wonder if Kate Dennett went home after writing that article, and told all her friends how satisfied she was fabricating whatever was needed to incite hatred towards a minority and vulnerable group. Meanwhile, in another part of BCP more than 80 drivers a week are being caught exceeding the speed limit, in some cases more than double the limit. Crashes occuring every day, and a young woman pedestrian killed because 2 cars were racing each other. But that’s not news worth reporting. What a shit excuse for a newspaper the Daily Mail is…
A good old frothy rage wank
A good old frothy rage wank article by The Heil there.
“quietly corrected?” is that
“quietly corrected?” is that the UK way of saying “ghost edited?”
SIGNS are being reviewed to
SIGNS are being reviewed to ensure cyclists are aware a new lane is open, after a video showed a cyclist using the road alongside a brand new bike lane.
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19826638.video-shows-cyclist-road-whitelegg-way—not-new-cycle-lane/
The commenters quoting the
The commenters quoting the 18mph figure for cycle lanes have all got it a bit wrong. The advice was proposed for shared use (cycle and pedestrian) paths (not cycle only lanes or tracks). It stated that if you intend to cycle at 18mph or quicker you should use the carriageway. I recall that he document that proposed this was never ratifed anyway but it does appear in some consultation documents for proposed shared facilities.
cbrndc wrote:
Mea maxima culpa. In fact I believe the more comprehensive cycle infra guidance is here (gov.uk address, SFW). A search on design speed will reveal that cycle lane (including shared lanes where cycling is the primary purpose but pedestrians are permitted) design speed may vary by installation but each speed comes with its design standards.
Bear in mind, of couerse, that this Local Transport Note was issued in July 2020. Most infra will pre-date and should be assessed(*) on the prevailing guidance at the time it was installed. (* ie criticise it and call for improvements, by all means, but reflect on the standards to which the highways team was working at the time before playing the man not the ball).
For those in the comments
For those in the comments saying they intend to complain about the original article – please go through the appropriate channels if you want to do that. Your complaint should be directed at the the organisation who published it, not an individual.
Jack, the original Daily Mail
Jack, the original Daily Mail article included a specific request from the journalist who wrote it to send in pictures of cyclists not using infrastructure to their own address. This has now been changed to tips@mailonline.co.uk. Comments suggesting that folk send in pictures of poor infrastructure/lanes blocked by cars look to have been deleted by road.cc. Seems a little heavy handed.
I don’t think they can edit
I don’t think they can edit someone elses post so they had to delete the original one with the out of date contact which means everything related to it goes as well.
The people having the
The people having the collective meltdown are the same ones who never drive in Lane 1 of a dual carriageway or motorway.
Year on year cars have got
Year on year cars have got bigger yet safe infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians is always met with the claim “emergency vehicles can’t get through” with no acceptance of their part in the problem.
Cars are the ones taking up space on roads, not bikes. And let’s not forget roads predate cars by a long way. Pedestrians have first claim surely.
If you look at the history,
If you look at the history, roads for pedestrians and horses were either dirt tracks or cobblestones.
Then cyclists come along and demand smooth alternatives to cobbles, and get them (tarmaced roads etc).
Finally, cars are built for the road cyclists demanded.
farnz wrote:
Obligatory link: https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
That base coat of tarmac
That base coat of tarmac would rattle even the smoothest washboard six packs, let alone my wok, that’s before we mention teeth and fillings.