Without enforcement these barriers and signs are as much use as a chocolate teapot. The ignorant cyclist's will always ignore these type of restrictions.
say's it all.. typical cyclist and he is not even wearing lycra!
I was on my way to N Abbot a few days ago and there were two lycra clad lads on racing bikes who took it in turn to move several feet out from the curb. From what I could observe they were merely doing this to block traffic from getting past them.You can't talk to these people as you just get your car kicked or verbally abused or both.
Who do these cyclist think would win if push came to shove? push bike or car/lorry...uhm, I wonder.
The government should implement the same system they have in Amsterdam. Make ALL cyclist's register and license
there cycles. This way you would have the ability to report a cyclist if there were riding on the pavement or road in a dangerous/ignorant way.
British Transport Police should lie in wait and impound his bike like the normal police do with car drivers under Section 59 make him pay to get it back or after three months send it to a recycling scheme for people that cant afford a bike.
Thanks Fred, I will pass on your suggestion to the station manger for our line.
I'm not sure what the purpose of those barriers are and they couldnt have been any uglier.
They clearly don't deter cyclists, but they have succeeded in making it impossible for my family to wheel our dinghy and kayaks along to Boat Cove. So instead we now launch them in Teignmouth. Then afterwards we eat at the Ship Inn instead of the Marine Tavern. More money spent in Teignmouth, less in Dawlish.
A few pics of more ignorant cyclist's on the Dawlish sea wall going through the barriers on their bikes.
It would also seem the new signs on the barriers by the railway underpass have been forcebly removed.
I wonder what type of person would commit this type of criminal damage? ignorant cyclists, maybe!
Can't help feeling that these barriers are a complete waste of money. Most cyclists I have encountered along the walk have been courteous and have given way to pedestrians. Yes I do not expect to see cyclists on busy summer days etc but really, yet more restrictions and laws designed to limit personal freedom. Why can we not use common sense instead? After all who does cycling along the pathway hurt?
@Sir Michael - i would assume that you are unaware of the drop on the sea wall between dawlish and the warren. in places there is a drop of 10 feet or more and the walkway is only about 8 to 9 feet wide, to the edge with no barriers.
Families walking with children, eldery and just normal walker's are put at risk by cyclist's who feel the need to ride their bikes along
these sections of the sea wall.
I have been a cyclist since before my teens and enjoy cycling nearly half a decade on, but there is no excuse for putting
others in danger.
If I had my way I would have all cycles confiscated and sold at a monthly auction with the money going to local
charities for those that flaunt the restrictions along the sea wall.
I am sorry to disagree with you Sir Michael, but riding along the sea wall is dangerous not only to cyclists, but to walkers. A miscalculation, a slight bump or a dog on too long a lead could mean a thirty-foot drop for somebody - an outcome to be avoided at all costs. There is the option of the new cycle path, linking Dawlish and Dawlish Warren - or of course shanks' pony.
It is Network Rail property and they quite sensibly apply these restrictions, but - as a keen kayaker (whose paddle has currently gone missing) - I would agree with Mcjrpc that the barriers are not only ugly and ineffectual but an unnecessary obstacle to the enjoyment of the Dawlish sea wall and other local facilities.
Does anyone else take a similar view?
Sorry to hear you're up s**t creek without a paddle GT but you're in good company.
I'm surprised Network Rail didn't top them off with some broken glass set in cement, far more 70s.
Hi Purrrrfect - actually I walk along the sea wall very frequently and admire the view from there, yes indeed there is a drop which would be pretty catastrophic if one fell. However, in our over-protective society where it seems that day by day we have the ability to manage rick taken from us. If there is a danger of miscalculation and a fall then why are walkers with as you say young children allowed to use it. They too can miscalculate and possibly fall. Perhaps a nice high fence on the seaward side is the answer? OK, I’m being slightly disingenuous to illustrate the point but perhaps allowing us to make these decisions is a way forward? And yes, the cycle way is indeed an option!
I understand that the main reason the barriers have been erected is to deter those using mobility scooters as there have been two accidents over the last six months where people on mobility scooters have come off the wall and landed on the beach below the station.
@ Margaret, so are you telling us that network rail is actively discriminating against those with disablities who have to use mobility scooters from enjoying going along one of the most beautiful sea view pathways ?
No, I am saying that I believe that the barriers were erected to deter those with mobility scooters due to two serious accidents.
And were those accidents caused by the mobility scooter drivers, cyclists or pedestrians?
Am I right in thinking that the seawall is the private property of Network Rail and as such they have every right to put up these barriers on their property? As ugly as they are.
@Hay Day, no idea, just know that two came off the seawall within a short space of time.
So this article say it was Dawlish Museum? http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/dawlish-museum-erect-entrance-barriers-safety/story-28346579-detail/story.html Does this sound strange to anyone else that the Express and Echo report it as the museum?
Well, it is the Exeter express and echo! If you read the article it also reports the barriers are behind the museum! Now I know the station is old but............
Network rail own and maintain the wall.
It's all goiing to be houses soon, any way.
Sent as a message to me by ER113 on the 23 07 2106 at 19:40hrs
Your message illustrates several things. Firstly, why cyclists move out into the middle of a lane. Incidentally it the advice provided by cycling authorities. By occupying the middle of a lane they give themselves a safety barrier from cars/lorriies who come to close. Secondly, its the precise reason why cyclists have to take extra care and stay out of the gutter, a place that is very dangerous and difficult Anyway, why should they be inthe gutter? As road users they have rights, and one of those is to use the road! May I suggest that you try reading the Highway Code before you pass judgment on other road users.
I assume the above message was in relation to my entry of the 21 07 2016 at 14:34hrs
Thank you for your message ER113. As a cyclist myself and a former police officer I am quite aware of the contents of the Highway code and how it relates to ALL road user's.
What I cannot abide is the ignorant attitude of SOME cyclist's whilst using the public highway. They do not have the right to ride in a way that puts other road user's at risk.
There is a difference between using judgement and being careless in their riding style.
Next time just place your message on the thread for all to read.
As an ex police officer and a cyclist you should know better.
I am struggling to understand your comment about cyclists putting other road users at risk; those at risk are the cyclists by the way in which vehicles of all types treat them. Further as a cyclist - incidentally what exactly does that mean - you should better understand the problems cyclists face not simply on a daily basis but often hourly.
Not all cyclists obey the law. Not all motorists obey the law so why pick on them? As for ignorant attitude of some cyclists, what are you referring to: what exactly are they, by implication you as you are a cyclist, doing to prove that they are ignorant?
@ER113 - from your entry i doubt i could stop you struggling. have a good day.
Obviously you know nothing about cycling, or cyclists.
Ignorance is bliss I am told but when it allows people like you loose on the roads then the lives of the vulnerable are in danger. For an ex poice officer to suggest that there is an issue about winning on the roads where cyclist are concerned or indeed any vulnerable person, with, presumably cars/lorries coming out on top is both disgraceful and disgusting.
Shame is not someting I suspect you know anything about so here's hoping I never meet you on the road.
ER113. Joined jan 2013 with a total of 2 posts in 3 years! Uhm!! And has the same properties as.
Another character on this site. I wonder!
Wonder what you like, but you will be wrong. Again attempting to reach conclusions with virtually no evidence to support them.
Again, what properties do I have that look like another character?
I note that I am, still waiting for your responses to my questions. I guess that since evidence for your claims is non-existent you cannot answer the questions.
Evening All! Hello, hello, hello, what's going on here then? I'm guessing that BEE9 used to be a traffic warden... 😂
ER113 - Take a chill pill,dude
Would any of the gutless wonders who keep pressing Report on totally harmless posts, care to share their rationale for doing so? Other than having too much time on your hands?
(Cue some sad sack pressing Report).
Just come back to this thread today so don't know the content of the reported post but...........Mrs Cs description of the gutless wonders sums her up so I am not surprised that, yet again, another of her posts has been reported. Mrs C...........are you really so obtuse that you do not know why your posts are reported again, and, again, and, again?
MY post reads as follows. So you're wrong yet again Margaret. Carry on reporting - the latest edition of the "comedy" series? And yes, some sadsack did press Report on my post of 17:49. Which says it all really.
Evening all! Hello, hello, hello, what's going on here then? I'm guessing that BEE9 used to be a traffic warden... 😂
And, purely coincidentally after Margaret's post, it looks like they've been embarrassed into somehow unreporting the post.
I can't imagine for a nano second why my post has been reported as it was entirely unoffensive, merely stating a fact, an opinion and a question! Then, I read Mrs Cs post at 21.51 and can only conclude she has been on the cooking sherry, again, as it is a totally bizarre post!
Mrs C, you have been busy editing and removing posts tonight. It looks like we will have to start taking screen grabs again just to prove how deceitful you are.
How is MY post at 21:51 bizarre Margaret? I don't think you're reading it correctly, bless you. Maybe it's been a long day/night for you? Some poodle agrees with you though...
Talking of poodles, here comes Burney. The serial reporter.
I've edited posts to add detail. Are you saying that the Edit button should be disabled?
I've deleted one post that referred to someone pressing Report. That report was subsequently removed, therefore making my post pointless. You should perhaps consider deleting some of your own pointless posts.
You take screenshots? Do you realise how mentalist that makes you appear?
Unfortunately with you, Mrs C, as you are a proven liar, it's a necessity. But of course, you knew that already, after your infamous post two years ago concerning Red Rock cafe. Why feign surprise?
Read Mrs Cs posts above...........I rest my case! Mentalist? Clearly she knows what one is as she is one!
Tut-tut Burney, you edited your post of 22:43 haven't you? How heinous!
Margaret, if you're thinking a bit clearer this morning, do you reckon you might be able to find the time to explain why you think my post of 21:51 was bizarre? Or acknowledge that you were misreading it.
Just read the first line! Bizarre.
"My post reads as follows". Yes, I've read it and re-read it. And I'm not at all sure how those five words could be construed as being bizarre.
If you're taking screenshots of someone's posts on this forum because someone might not be fully truthful then you really need to get out more and find a new hobby.
I don't care if Morty Vicker had a million names before, if MV posts anything I don't like or disagree with, I either ignore or say something in a respectful way. That is how grown ups behave!
You have to ask yourself why the poster currently going under the alias of Morty Vicker has been repeatedly banned from this site, but constantly returns under yet another name. A few months ago she announced that she was leaving the forum and would not be posting again, unfortunately that period lasted only a few weeks and then she was back, up to her old ways. I genuinely believe she needs psychiatric help.
I would have to know from the moderator why she was banned but I haven't seen any behaviour from MV that is even close to needing to be banned for.
I said read the first LINE! Honestly, you are so gormless!
You've yet again failed to explain why any of it is "bizarre". Perhaps you'd like to try again?
I'll make it less foggy for you by pasting the whole post again for you:
So you're wrong yet again Margaret. Carry on reporting - the latest edition of the "comedy" series? And yes, some sadsack did press Report on my post of 17:49. Which says it all really.
Exactly! What was I wrong about? I hadn!t reported anything and what is the comedy series? If you cannot see that for being bizarre then you are even denser than I originally thought! But..............in your cooking sherry soaked moment I suppose you knew what you were on about, or at least thought you knew what you were on about.
Margaret Swift wrote (albeit at 22:30) on 22nd July:
Carry on deflecting! We could make this the next film in the franchise!!
To end the slanging matches on this thread I think it is best for me to close it.
Please start a new thread if you want to get back onto the original topic.