A cycle lane that traverses the entrance to a side road in Exeter should be changed so that “cyclists give way to vehicles”, according to an independent county councillor who posted several videos of his visit to the location titled ‘I Could Have Killed a Cyclist Today… But Whose Fault Would It Have Been?’
> Why don’t cyclists use cycle lanes?
Councillor Ed Hill is a former Reform UK member who is now the independent councillor for Pinhoe & Mincinglake following his expulsion from the party in July 2025 for publishing a letter about free school meals citing names of all Devon’s Reform councillors without their consent – he then joined the now-dissolved Advance UK party, but was also expelled from that in May of this year following a ‘grooming gang row’ according to Devon Live.
Hill posted no fewer than five videos from various perspectives to argue that “the only solution” for making the junction safe would be for cyclists to have to give way to road users turning into Pinbrook Road from Exhibition Way.
View this post on Instagram
We’ve embedded Devon Live’s highlights reel of Cllr Hill’s five clips above for brevity, in which the publication claims the “dangerous cycle path set-up” is “creating a constant stream of arguments between drivers and cyclists” based on Cllr Hill’s footage and testimony.
Hill, who says he parked his camper van nearby to film the junction from several perspectives, is seen from the driver’s seat of a LGV after his introduction from the roadside, claiming he can “hardly see anything at all” of the cycle path as he’s turning left into it at a 45-degree angle.
“So if there’s a cyclist travelling down the cycle path at the moment, from this position I can’t see them because my blind spots are too big on the left hand side of the vehicle”, claims Hill.
A cyclist then appears as Hill is about to continue his manoeuvre: “That was perfect timing”, he says.
“There was no way I could have seen that cyclist and there was no way I could have given way to him, even when I was being as cautious as I was. The priority on that cycle path is completely wrong. It should be set up so that cyclists give way to vehicles, not the other way around. Because you can’t give way to somebody that you can’t see.”
Hill then says that based off the maximum 15.5mph assisted speed of a street legal electric bike (EAPC), a cyclist will be travelling “…around 15 metres in just over 2 seconds—enough to move from the start of the blind spot to the middle of the junction before a driver has any realistic opportunity to see them.”
“At the same time, a driver is checking for traffic approaching from the right, steering through the turn, monitoring pedestrians and attempting to observe the priority crossing”, he continues.
“This isn’t just about the Highway Code; it’s about human factors and designing roads that account for how people actually drive.”
Saying that he will question Devon County Council on how the design was approved as safe, Hill calls for the white give way markings to be removed from the main carriageway, replaced instead by give way lines on the cycle path and a ‘slow’ sign to warn cyclists to slow down as they approach.
Highway Code rule 183 states that motorists should “…give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane, cycle track or tramway from either direction, including when they are passing slow moving or stationary vehicles on either side” when turning left. To answer Cllr Hill’s question as the top of his original post, then, he would have undoubtedly been in the wrong if he’d killed a cyclist at this junction according to the Highway Code.
Devon Live’s Instagram post attracted the attention of Shaun “Big” Jobber, a liability specialist with hundreds of thousands of followers across TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. He did not have much time for Hill’s recommendation that the junction be altered.
“Adequate observations on approach to the turn when you’re travelling at normal speed (not a crawl) will reduce the risk here driver”, said Jobber.
“As you’re approaching, observe whether cyclists are using the shared cycle pedestrian pathway or not, if not, then you’ll know it’s fine to turn, they don’t appear out of a portal from nowhere, your windows and mirrors will reveal anyone as you approach the turn.”
Despite Hill claiming that he had been told of “repeated” near misses at the junction, a spokesperson for Devon County Council said: “We have not received any other concerns regarding this junction.
“The junction has been designed in accordance with the latest national cycling infrastructure guidance and the current priority arrangement reflects changes to the Highway Code introduced in 2021, which require drivers turning into a side road to give way to cyclists travelling ahead of them.”
Cllr Hill’s preference for cyclists giving way to other road users also extends to ‘floating’ bus stops, as he took to Facebook again on Friday to argue that Exeter’s bus stops utilising the controversial design should have pedestrian crossings, a design brief already adhered to in London.
[sic] “FLOATING BUS STOPS SHOULD HAVE CROSSINGS — AND CYCLISTS MUST GIVE WAY”, said Cllr Hill.
“Between 2020–24, collisions involving a single pedal cycle and pedestrian resulted in 9 pedestrian deaths and 738 serious injuries in Great Britain. This isn’t anti-cycling. It’s pro-safety and good road design. If London can do it, Exeter can too.”
The Exeter Cycling Campaign – that has frequently clashed with Hill on his social media posts around cycling – agreed on this occasion, saying: “We asked [Devon County Council] to consider this over two years ago at Rifford Road. Now that the new floating bus stop guidance is published (Jan 2026) we hope they will now reassess. We have suggested the same for the side road crossings to reinforce even further the priority for people on mobility scooters, bikes and foot.
“Rifford Road is a great example of good transport for all (including motor vehicles). If every street in Exeter offered the safe and easy options for all that Rifford now does, then we would be a very different City. But if it can be even more inclusive then that is great.”
39 thoughts on “Cycle path “creating a constant stream of arguments between drivers and cyclists” should be altered “so cyclists give way to vehicles”, demands councillor expelled from Reform UK”
“A cycle lane that traverses the entrance to a side road in Exeter should be changed so that “cyclists give way to vehicles”, according to an independent county councillor”
Newsflash: Bicycles are vehicles.
Now what?
I’ve had a brief look on Facebook, and Ed Hill (who now appears to be affiliated with Advance UK) seems to have taken some useful road safety improvements under his remit, including an initiative to help local pedestrians on unpaved roads, where the wider council won’t help due to planning failures.
Regarding the cycle path, I think this is linked to a wider misunderstanding about giving way at junctions and I’m afraid I cannot agree with Mr Hill’s conclusion.
Regardless of the suitability of the cycle path, vehicles should give way at the junction to both pedestrians crossing and cyclists. It seems to be a poorly understood rule among motorists where some believe they have priority at junctions like this, where they certainly do not.
I once had a similar issue myself, while leisurely walking to Waitrose to buy some lunchtime fripperies. A driver beeped their horn as I crossed the junction, despite me having priority, and was shocked and apologetic when I explained I had priority.
A polite conversation later, the driver departed, educated and updated on the rules of the road.
@Nigel Garage …and then everyone applauded my courtesy and I waved courteously to all the people who were courteously throwing flowers and cheering and courteously waving flags that said “Nigel is the best!”
@Rendel Harris you’ve painted a rather alluring picture of social harmony there, but unfortunately you’ve got my name wrong. I’m Jack, not Nigel.
However, to return the compliment, I must think of a story for you.
I imagine you sat outside a pub, real ale and pipe propped on the adjacent table, in a similar fashion to Nigel Farage at his populist best. You turn to your wife. “You know what dear? I think I’ve been a bit harsh in my time. I’ve shunned the politeness and wisdom of others for too long and want to change my ways.*
“There there Rendel”, says Mrs Harris. “You’re not a bad old stick, it’s just living in London that’s emptied your soul of kindness and compassion. I’ve found a lovely new place where we can settle down in our later years. It’s on a leafy cul de sac, surrounded by friendly neighbours and smiling faces. There’s a guy a couple of doors down, a remarkable man. As well as his towering intellect and rapier wit, he’s also a keen cyclist, holding severa local KOMs. Don’t be perturbed dear – he’ll ride with anyone provided they show other road users the kindness and courtesy they deserve.”
Rendel turned emotionally, voice shaking. “Oh my dear, thank you for this second chance”, and with that the rest of the pub goers turned and applauded the couple, throwing garlands of petals in their wake. The end.
@Nigel Garage Then sanity returned and he said, “Hang on, are you suggesting that we leave our beautiful Victorian flat in the middle of the greatest city on earth to go and live in some nasty Barratt Homes newbuild in a place so boring that for entertainment the residents constantly troll websites from which they’ve been banned a dozen times, with a creepy accountant who cyberstalks people’s Facebook photos to get material to use for his silly posts on said websites for a neighbour?”
“Yes, on second thoughts let’s stay here,” she said, and they lived very happily ever after.
First impression from the headline that he’s likely a twit. Then the detail he was expelled from Reform makes you suspect that failing even their low bar requirements he really is. Then he clearly explains his vehicle is unsafe for the highway because he can’t see to give way when turning. Any collision he now has should have that video run out explaining he drove a vehicle he knew to be unsafe.
Advice for motorists; instead of thinking that pedestrians and cyclists are low risk 100kg objects, imagine them as a 300 Tonne trains that will crush you and your vehicle if you cross into their paths. You’d give way to the train, so you equally can to the others.
@Homebaker, put a 6″spike in the center of the steering wheel of all cars. How fast would they drive?
“So if there’s a cyclist travelling down the cycle path at the moment, from this position I can’t see them because my blind spots are too big on the left hand side of the vehicle”, claims Hill.
Well, there’s your problem, right there…🙄
The picture from street view clearly shows give way lines from the roads to the green painted cycle/pedestrian lane.
The road user should give way (or must…) to the user of the green lane. This would of course apply to any cyclist on the roadway.
Ed Hill was chucked out by Reform in 2025, though TBF to him it was about how to run it rather than ideology I think.
He is now reportedly closer to Advance UK, which is distinctly more extreme than Reform.
I’d call this Alan Amos style attention seeking.
As a Councillor, Edward needs to be paying some attention to all that parking obstructing visibility and manoeuvres at the junction, and sorting out those radii.
Follow the road rules.
Why is this even a discussion?
Because the road rules are not adequately policed.
…Solution: how about £100 fines for everyone flouting the road rules / risking cyclists lives on social media and in council chambers, as well as on the roads? That should stop this ongoing waste of time.
If the man can’t turn his head to check his blind spot he shouldn’t be on the road
“Between 2020–24, collisions involving a single pedal cycle and pedestrian resulted in 9 pedestrian deaths and 738 serious injuries in Great Britain. This isn’t anti-cycling. It’s pro-safety and good road design. If London can do it, Exeter can too.”
In the same period there were around 6000 fatalities and 115000 serious casualties on the roads generally. Bicycle users are therefore demonstrably less dangerous than other road users, and perhaps if Ed is “pro safety” he ought to look to at the other 99% of road users.
Maybe he could start with people making a social media post while driving.
“If London can do it, Exeter can too”
While ignoring that London would now have the cycle path having priority OR install traffic lights requiring drivers regularly stop.
They pretty much never require the cycle path give way to cars on a parallel carriageway now.
Something to do with the idea that drivers know they are crossing the cycle path and the most common case is them approaching from behind at higher speeds than the majority of cyclists can achieve…
Just turn your head Ed.
Perhaps you’ve gone so far to the right turning left is the problem?
If drivers find it too hard to give way then maybe it should be a stop sign. That will give them enough time to look.
Ed Hill: “I Could Have Killed a Cyclist Today… But Whose Fault Would It Have Been?’
Tell us that you shouldn’t have a driving licence, without telling us.
Should there be a new law in place that if someone puts a statement in writing (ie online) that indicates their dangerous mis-understanding of road rules that they should recieve points and a fine, or loss of licence depending on severity?
Since so many people fail to understand the basic but vital changes made over the years to the HWC, I propose ALL drivers licenses are suspended until they sit and pass a theory test every 2 years to ensure they are kept informed with all the different rules that have been brought in over the years.
Its clear that many drivers who think they know the rules are, in many cases, very wrong. If I was trained in using a very dangerous piece of machinery, I would expect to have to be retrained on it to satisfy the safety case to know I was still competent to operate that machine if it changed in any way from its previous standard operating procedure. Why should cars or lorries be any different?
@Smoggysteve
Andor if there is evidence of a driver using the vehicle in a way that would fail a test (ie dangerous fault) then they should lose their licence rather than just recieve points and a fine.
If a dangerous fault on a test is enough to prevent someone gaining a full licence, Shirley that same fault should be enough to lose it.
@mitsky Prevention is better than cure. i wouldnt want wait until they kill someone before action is taken.
And many people driving never even had to sit a theory test. So are we to take a driving test taken decades ago as enough to assume they understand many new rules that have been brought in in the mean time?
When I was in the army , I had to sit a theory test once a year to keep my ability to drive military vehicles in date. I see why this shouldnt be replicated for all drivers. Standards have dropped sharply in recent years. And if it helps make roads safer and also educate many about things like priorities for vulnerable road users there is only positives to take away. any push back is , i assume, more to do with ego. Why should I have to resit a test periodically if Ive never had an incident? Personally Id rather not wait to find out. I would rather know if youre behind the wheel of a car you know exactly that the rules are cos you’re up to date via a theory test.
I would also suggest that if anyone fails their theory so badly or repeatedly they should have their license reviewed and a possible loss of license until a full test is passed. I know many will say, they will continue to drive without a license. I believe in the cases where this is true, they would do so even if banned after an incident anyway. At least this way we are attempting to educate and raise standards of all road users not just the very worst.
Um – I think you missed the ‘andor’ at the start of mitsky’s post.
Prevention is better than cure, but prevention *and* cure is better than either.
@mdavidford No I didnt.
Hmm – the way you’ve edited your post to tone down the suggestion that they were saying something they weren’t suggests even you don’t believe that.
@mdavidford “Hmm – the way you’ve edited your post to tone down the suggestion that they were saying something they weren’t suggests even you don’t believe that.”
Nope, and tbh, I couldn’t care less about what you think. Anything positive to add? Nope! just your usual nonsense, so bore off.
If by ‘positive’ you mean ‘loosing strays at undeserving commenters and then doubling down on it’, no – sorry to disappoint.
@Smoggysteve 100% agree.
The HSE has undoubtedly reduced injuries in the work place. Why shouldn’t some of the principals / evidence they’ve gathered in achieving this be run out to the public.
It’s really just common sense.
As someone who lived in Exeter many years ago, its deeply disappointing to find that a part of the city elected this moron of a councillor.
You’re allowed to look at the cycle lane before and as you turn. Which is what this driver did, except he then also stopped and waited for a cyclist to appear in order to make this ‘point’.
PS if you have to stop, then turning your head to look is another option. You can also lean forwards in your seat AND turn your head. Take this person’s driving licence away please.
Councillor Ed Hill demonstrates perfectly how inexperienced and badly trained are Reform and ex-Reform councillors. Anybody informed on the subject would have ensured that their diatribe contained at least one example of ‘I’m a cyclist myself, but……’
Being fair, there are a few councillors of all shades who seem intent on not disturbing their preexisting opinions on certain topics with new facts or understanding.
I do think the populist parties are more susceptible to this though. They seem to attract those with the idea that government is corrupt and it just needs some people with “common sense” to come in and fix it. They *are* right that there’s inefficiency, inflexibility, self-serving and even some corruption there. The error is in thinking that a) those are the biggest issues and b) inexperienced people with strong opinions (and sometimes cloth ears) can quickly change it for the better…
@chrisonabike All the political parties are populist – they don’t exist to serve their community/area/country, they exist to serve themselves and their party. There’s a word I’d use to cover them all beginning with c but I won’t spell it out here.
Driver expected to drive in accordance with the highway code. I can see why he was vexed by that!
The cycle path at that point is (part of) the main road, not the side road.
Alternatively, they could make that a “no left turn” for HGVs.
In Berlin in the 1980’s there was an investigation into the high death rate on the cities cycle paths. The deaths occured at junctions and the most dangerous cycle paths were those seperated from the road, with death rates of 4 to 12 times worse than having no cycle path at all (the principle cause was visibility). This study cause a major redesign of cycle paths. Looking at the video of the cycle path it appears that the people who designed it have never heard of the Berlin study. The councillor is correct, the cycle path is dangerous and needs to be changed before a cyclist is killed.
@neilmck Always worth pointing out when that study is cited that the Berlin paths in question were not segregated paths built onto roads but lanes put on to existing pavements where they were obscured by trees, bus shelters, traffic furniture etc. It’s often quoted by opponents of segregated infra to prove it doesn’t work, all it proves is that painting lanes on existing pavements doesn’t work.
@Rendel Harris Yes, I agree. I like the study because it highlights that it is possible for badly designed cycle paths to kill, something, I assume, was not known in the post-war years when the Berlin cycling network was built. It appears to me that the problem with this part of the cycle path is the wide corner. It allows traffic to enter the road far too quickly and the angle of the traffic puts the cyclist in the vehicle’s blind spot. Would a tighter, more 90° corner solve the issue?