A development trust in Scotland has been forced to remind locals not to drive on a cycle and pedestrian path, after residents were forced to challenge motorists using the infrastructure as a “shortcut” during roadworks.
A section of the A702 at Penpont, a village just west of Thornhill in Dumfriesshire, is currently closed as works are carried out for essential road reconstruction and drainage improvements, with diversion signs and an alternative route via the B729 and A76 put in place.
However, the Kier, Penpont, and Tynron Development Trust (KPTDT) says it has witnessed a “small minority” of drivers availing of the active travel path, which runs adjacent to the road between Penpont and Thornhill, in order to bypass the diversion.
In a social media post, the development trust – while admitting that the roadworks are a “major headache” and “incredibly frustrating” – warned these shortcut-seeking motorists that they were putting “vulnerable pedestrians, children, and cyclists at serious risk”.
The £2.3m path was opened in March 2024 and built to provide a traffic-free 2.5-mile route connecting Penpont and Thornhill. It can be accessed from the road through a small entrance but is otherwise separated from motor traffic by a large grass verge, fences, and hedges.
“Reminder to all drivers: We know the ongoing roadworks and detour on the A702 at Penpont are a major headache and adding time to your journeys,” the trust said in a statement earlier this week.
“However, we are seeing motor vehicles attempting to use the Active Travel Path as a shortcut to bypass the diversion. Please remember: The Active Travel Path is NOT a road. Who it is for: It is designed exclusively for active travel – walking, cycling, and ‘wheeling’ (mobility scooters, wheelchairs, and prams).
“Who it is NOT for: All motorised vehicles are strictly prohibited. The only exceptions are emergency services on duty and authorised maintenance vehicles.”
The trust continued: “Using this path as a detour puts vulnerable pedestrians, children, and cyclists at serious risk. It is physically separated from the main road precisely to keep people safe.
“Please follow the signed diversion routes, drive safely, and let’s keep our community paths safe for everyone. Thank you for your patience and cooperation!”
A few days later, the trust reiterated its warning, issuing a second statement telling drivers: “We know the A702 diversion via the B729 and A76 is incredibly frustrating, but please remember that the Penpont to Thornhill cycle path is strictly an active travel route.”
The revelation that motorists are using a seemingly protected active travel route as a shortcut to avoid a lengthy diversion has left many locals baffled and angry.
“I would say unbelievable. But nothing is a surprise anymore,” Barry Shelby wrote in the comments under the trust’s post.
“I wish this was a joke post,” added Kerry Thomson. “I’d report them to the police if I saw any. How thick can you get?”
Speaking to the BBC, KPTDT development officer Michelle Johnston reinforced the message that the path is “strictly reserved” for pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelers.
“Driving any unauthorised motorised vehicle along the path is strictly prohibited by law,” she said.
“While we recognise this involves only a small minority of drivers seeking shortcuts during the current roadworks, this restriction is essential to ensure the safety of walkers, cyclists, families, and local wildlife.”
She noted that the trust is “incredibly grateful” to the path users to challenged drivers trying to use the infrastructure. Johnston also said that civil engineers have since put extra safety precautions in place to prevent any future rat runs.
“We thank the community for working together to keep this a safe, welcoming space for everyone,” she said.
50 thoughts on ““I wish this was a joke”: Motorists told to stop driving on cycle path during roadworks, putting children “at serious risk””
Another example of why I advocate that all cycle paths should be painted green, everywhere.
That way, wherever drivers are, they know that they should not be on them.
But then you’ll just get cows all over them, thinking they’re grass.
@mdavidford cows! The most dangerous thing out there for vulnerable road users!
Well, except for driving cows.
@mdavidford
But then the cows (being smarter than the drivers who end up on bike lanes) would quickly learn they aren’t made of grass and stay away permanently.
@mitsky because the cycle symbols and the blue cycle route signs are just too subtle…
@mitsky they know. It’s very clear on the entrance. Their sense of entitlement tells them it’s fine. They’re just bad human beings
@mitsky I think they already know they shouldn’t be on them but they just don’t care.
Does this mean I can cycle on a motorway and drivers won’t mind?
@eburtthebike as long as it’s a short cut & you are a “hard working cyclist” you should be fine. The Rozzers won’t care & should be out catching “real” criminals anyway.
So, why isn’t there a removable bollard in place at either end?
@wtjs because it limits access for users, such as those in some wheelchairs, or trikes (not an exhaustive list). Or for pedestrians with wide buggies/prams. Lots of shared use infra is crap for many of those it is intended to serve.
@Malv173 No it doesn’t. This is a large-vehicle-wide road, so a bollard in the centre of each entrance would be no impediment to anything but illicit large vehicles
@Malv173 Even the widest, off-road type e-trikes, Jorviks for example, are only about half the width of the average car, and even bariatric power wheelchairs are narrower still. Closing the gap enough to prevent car access wouldn’t limit access for the users you mention.
@Malv173 the cynic might say there isn’t a bollard because it *wouldn’t* be a PITA for vulnerable road users, just for motor access.
Meanwhile much narrower spots seem to be favourites for making completely inaccessible on dubious grounds (“keep out yoof on motorbikes” – only many clearly don’t).
The “gold standard” is not to have obstructions that people can crash into on cycle paths, but that can only happen when motoring has been reduced and people have been retrained.
@wtjs why isn’t there a removable bollard in place at either end?
I’ll answer my own question: because central deep steel socket – steel bollard – lock would be cheap and would work. Until the nutters move in with heavy machinery and knock them over, and the police would be too busy to do anything about it
I have some bad news for Kerry Thomson about Police Scotland. Might as well try and report them to Captain America for all the chance they’d do anything about it.
@yodhrin BBC News – Police officer who raped two women jailed for 12 years – BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqkg53v29005o?app-referrer=search
They have ‘a lot on’ at the moment!
I appreciate that I’m a uniquely petulant bastard, but if I came across a car driving on a bike path I’d plonk myself in front of it and rely on the fact that they probably wouldn’t murder me in public while I wait for the police to arrive.
Why haven’t these drivers been videoed and reported?
@Fursty Ferret Why haven’t these drivers been videoed and reported?
Because the police would take great pleasure in filing the report in the bin
@wtjs the prohibition (as written) on using a motor vehicle in a cycle lane only exists where the road and cycle lane are co-linear and marked or seperated by a solid white line.
[ironic]blue signage is advisory and can be discretionally disregarded[/ironic], though the sheriff might have some choice remarks if you cause a collision and were identified for prosecution.
(curious, new comment section has a tree depth limit of 1 original + 4 replies.)
I’m afraid you’re entirely mistaken there, circular blue signs give mandatory instructions, as in this case only bicycles and pedestrians permitted. They hold the same force as a red “no cars permitted” sign and motorists absolutely do not have the right to disregard them at their discretion.
@Rendel Harris good explanation, perhaps they were thinking of the square ones (advice)?
I wonder if the “no motor vehicles” sign would be better respected? (Pretty sure here it would make no difference, it’s bloody-mindedness or willful “confusion” – “you *must be able to get through, otherwise you’d have to drive miles”).
More generally I think the “only” signs / blue colour may not have been the best design. Especially as for cycling there are two signs simply differing in shape.
But perhaps this is just “bike blindness” – people just assuming that signs relating to cycling *must* be “info only” for motorists?
For ref the UK government has info on all of this at “Bus and cycle signs and road markings”.
@the infamous grouse pedantry but this isn’t a “cycle lane” (simply another lane on the road) it’s a “cycle path” (well, shared-use path).
While we know in practice that the legal prohibitions on driving in non-driving spaces (eg. “the pavement” – the footway) are effectively ignored *, with cycle *lanes* these are in many cases not even ther. “Advisory” cycle lanes are meaningless, and there’s a legal dodge where driving and IIRC driving or even parking in some “mandatory” cycle lanes (solid line as you mention) is allowed, depending on the date of installation. Cycling UK have some articles on this.
I belive that *nobody* wants cycle *lanes*, except possibly councils who can use them to get money and tick boxes without (too much…) outrage from motorists.
* Except for a couple of places in the UK which have said that no, they are interested. But even there it’s highly unlikely you’d face much if any consequence.
@chrisonabike It’s difficult to decide if the ’round blue traffic signs can be ignored’ comment is plain stupid or just badly executed irony. Even the police in Lancashire, where the Highway Code and associated legislation has been abrogated and police regulation abandoned, would anticipate the chaos resulting from drivers ignoring bus lanes etc
Bus lanes are a good point.
I doubt the signs do much initially. BUT since that sometimes leads to very salient stories about “bonkers greedy council makes x thousands from trapping honest drivers in bus gate scam” i think locals get educated quickly!
As we know it’s almost impossible to imagine such a story about cycle infra… (likely because it wouldn’t lead to education, but mobs of baying taxi drivers, double -parkers etc. marching on the council offices)
@Fursty Ferret Not uniquely, I’d be more than happy to do a spot of Gandalfing if it was in my area, as I have done on numerous occasions in different circumstances, e.g. stopping car drivers from ignoring no entry signs into LTNs.
@Fursty Ferret good, but that may not be good general advice. It’s possible you’re just dealing with dozy drivers, but them being there could be evidence they don’t give a stuff about more than just road law.
There are a number of cases of motorists exiting their vehicles and battering people in public for less.
All the usual advisories apply eg. get off bike, get it between you and any threat, be prepared to sacrifice it.
Plus the response from the police and especially the courts may be less than rapid or vigorous.
@Fursty Ferret
“… if I came across a car driving on a bike path…”
or
“… if I came across someone driving on a bike path…”
http://rc-rg.com
“…if I encountered someone driving on a person path…”
I think it’s important to see this from both sides. According to one local resident (per Facebook):
“A real shame that there are no proper diversion signs or any advised diversion routes. The locations of warning signs and the few diversion signs are appalling and misleading.”
So it sounds like drivers might genuinely not know where they are meant to be going and simply see the path alongside and assume that’s the diversion.
By the way, that photo in the article exemplifies why segregated shared use paths are an absolutely crap idea. Imagine I’m riding there, doing 20mph. Am I meant to use the path with people spewed haphazardly all over it? Or the road where drivers get upset by cyclists ignoring the expensive new infrastructure they’ve paid for? Lose lose.
Sure it’s nice for people to have a jolly with their kids at the weekend, but let’s be honest it would make far more sense just to widen the existing road for pedestrians and cyclists as an integrated solution, and families can go to the upgraded local park with the money saved.
@jackcycles
“So it sounds like drivers might genuinely not know where they are meant to be going and simply see the path alongside and assume that’s the diversion.”
Only if you are despately clutching at straws and have no idea about road markings or signage.
“By the way, that photo in the article exemplifies why segregated shared use paths are an absolutely crap idea. Imagine I’m riding there, doing 20mph. Am I meant to use the path with people spewed haphazardly all over it? Or the road where drivers get upset by cyclists ignoring the expensive new infrastructure they’ve paid for? Lose lose.”
You exercise your judgement/rights, as you would in any other situation.
”
Sure it’s nice for people to have a jolly with their kids at the weekend, but let’s be honest it would make far more sense just to widen the existing road for pedestrians and cyclists as an integrated solution, and families can go to the upgraded local park with the money saved.”
Why do you think that this would be safer and/or cheaper (never mind pleasant)?
You could not be an entitled prick and slow down to a safe speed for the situation, showing your much-self-vaunted-though-probably-imaginary courtesy, as you have so frequently told others they must do in such situations? Or you could ride on the road because, as you’ve also so frequently told us, Britain’s roads are the envy of the world for their safety record and you ride with such courtesy that you never have any interactions with drivers apart from “cheery waves”?
@Rendel Harris oh it’s not that I would expect anything other than cheery waves, especially from the friendly and hospitable fine people of Scotland, but honestly it wouldn’t seem right to slow down hard working motorists if I wasn’t engaging in an activity that added value to the economy.
As the adage goes, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Cycling infrastructure has been provided over generations through the blood, sweat and tears of hard working people, and it seems such a shame to (hypothetically of course) stick two fingers up at the productive in society.
Additionally I wouldn’t want to slow right down on the shared use track. I have a motto of “full gas always”… No time to lounge around I’m afraid, I’m a busy man!
You’ve missed out “of”.
Yep. From the point of view of the cyclist or pedestrian about to be run over from behind, as well as that of the one about to be hit head on.
Reminds one of that line in The Blues Brothers when they asked the wife of the proprietor of Bob’s Country Bunker what kind of music they usually played, “Oh we have both kinds, country and western.”
Your version of looking at it from both sides is first to look at it from a pro-car perspective, then to look at it from an anti-active-travel perspective.
“By the way, that photo in the article exemplifies why segregated shared use paths are an absolutely crap idea. Imagine I’m riding there, doing 20mph. Am I meant to use the path with people spewed haphazardly all over it? Or the road where drivers get upset by cyclists ignoring the expensive new infrastructure they’ve paid for? Lose lose.”
As someone who has used that section of road many times I would always stay on the road rather than use the cycle path, although not very wide it has many sections where it is easy for cars to overtake and in normal circumstances is not very busy. At that point in a ride I would still be over 50 miles from home so I wouldn’t want to cruise down the shared path mixing with pedestrians.
The shared path appears to be set up to allow tourists to feel comfortable doing cycling/walking loops from Drumlanrig castle and gardens rather than experienced cyclists going from A to B (and then maybe back to A)
@Backladder haven’t got out there yet! In my experience “it depends” with both roads and cycle infra.
The former can be regularly fine – until you have a couple of horror shows in a row. The latter – despite “shared use” – might be in practice be almost empty.
I’ve had the odd tricky interaction on shared use (but Edinburgh…) However I’ve not yet felt in danger of death on one. (Canal paths are almost always “no” though).
“haven’t got out there yet! ”
Well worth a visit, but plan your route carefully, there are a few diabolically steep hills on the back roads or if you want to ride to the Lowther golf ball.
@Backladder if we had any sense we’d realise that “shared use” is “buying too cheap” in many places. Single small space for both – get not many of either (and everyone is disgruntled).
Although … out in the countryside I believe the Dutch often *only* build “shared use”. But they make nice wide cycle paths that people can *also* walk on. But where there will be lots of walkers? A footway *and* a cycle path.
@chrisonabike This is out in the countryside and without Drumlanrig castle being in the neighbourhood it would be empty of both cyclists and pedestrians most of the time.
@Backladder Do locals never drive to Thornhill for the cafe, community centre, school, vets etc.?
Yes, this is “proper countryside” and maybe most people simply drive the fair ways to the big town (Dumfries!).
The countryside is difficult when it comes to transport choices. I do know that in many places where it’s made less unattractive people do choose the car less often.
I’m not convinced more than a couple of the locals would walk on that road. Kids and older people cycling there seem rather unlikely also. But maybe they’re hardy folk?
Recreational cyclists – as evidenced by the folks on here – will likely cycle anyways, probably even if it was banned!
@chrisonabike
“The countryside is difficult when it comes to transport choices. ”
You’re not wrong.
“Recreational cyclists – as evidenced by the folks on here – will likely cycle anyways, probably even if it was banned!”
Twice.
Looks like what was a 2 mile drive is now minimum 15 miles, around half an hour. So no doubt “frustrating” – because it *used to be* just there.
OTOH cycling that trip instead is now highly competitive! Even walking is not too far behind albeit a stretch for some at over 30 mins.
For neighbouring places in the countryside the usual mantra is “don’t bother making active travel provision, nobody walks / cycles”. But that is self-fulfilling. If there is good provision – and particularly if that is more direct than the motor route, a significant fraction of people will.
(IIRC there’s some data about people’s acceptance of journey times – 15 minutes or less is ideal, which is the case here).
Maybe it could stay that way? 😉
Given “humans” I’m going to go with at best “wilful ignorance” when people say “but the diversion isn’t clear…”
Streetview safari – starting from (alas – outside) Penpont and heading east. Can’t see why the path is needed – clearly ideal for sharing by all modes! 😉
@chrisonabike And easily confused with the road, that path…
@chrisonabike other end. There appear to be two access points, one would involve driving up a track, the other involves turning off the main road (not in the expected diversion direction) and presumably now has a similar entry (has an older streetview image though, before construction finished).
As an explanation I’m definitely going with “well it says there should be a road here and it looks like I can…”.
Or just “sod it, not driving the long way, that’s ridiculous”.
Would they have been able to finish that bit properly if they hadn’t lopped a couple of grand off the budget to get it under £500k?
@mdavidford using a “Bath cap”, you mean?
Also your reminder that data show that “wider road” doesn’t mean “more careful sharing” (or even “higher capacity”).
What it *does* mean is *higher speed*. And possibly “less attentive/ careful drivers”.