AA President says it 'doesn't look great' van was parked in cycle lane

The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.

Edmund King OBE, was responding to an image posted on social media of the vehicle parked in a cycle path in Cheadle Hume, Stockport.

Twitter user, Andy Brown spotted the van and posted an image asking the AA what was going on.

Their initial response from the official Twitter account was met with heavy criticism.

It read: "We can see the side door on the van is open, so it looks as though the Patrol is attending a breakdown at one of the houses.

"Our Patrols will assess the situation to find the safest place to park, for them and other road users."

However, numerous people pointed out the van, which has since been moved, was illegally parked and there was no reason whatsoever that would justify it being in a protected cycle lane.

One person commented: "This isn't up to the discretion of your employee, it is a criminal offence to park on a cycle lane bordered by a solid white line.

"Does the AA endorse criminal behaviour?"

Eventually, the AA president got involved, and said: "Fairly difficult for me to comment when I don’t know the circumstances so we are investigating.

"But obviously it doesn’t look great to stop in a cycle lane but let’s find out."

Again, this was deemed inappropriate by large numbers of people.

One man wrote: "You could say it is completely wrong to park in a cycle lane, rather than it not 'looking great'.

"Makes it sound like you’re more worried about the perception than actual safety, and the law."

Mr King later responded to another comment asking if he was going to do anything about the incident.

He replied: "I am, thanks", alongside an image of cycling safety stickers.

He later said he was waiting for the full facts to emerge, and added: "I would rather base [my] comments on facts but obviously accept that it is generally wrong to stop in a cycle lane."

https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385

On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:
The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.

Edmund King OBE, was responding to an image posted on social media of the vehicle parked in a cycle path in Cheadle Hume, Stockport.

Twitter user, Andy Brown spotted the van and posted an image asking the AA what was going on.

Their initial response from the official Twitter account was met with heavy criticism.

It read: "We can see the side door on the van is open, so it looks as though the Patrol is attending a breakdown at one of the houses.

"Our Patrols will assess the situation to find the safest place to park, for them and other road users."

However, numerous people pointed out the van, which has since been moved, was illegally parked and there was no reason whatsoever that would justify it being in a protected cycle lane.

One person commented: "This isn't up to the discretion of your employee, it is a criminal offence to park on a cycle lane bordered by a solid white line.

"Does the AA endorse criminal behaviour?"

Eventually, the AA president got involved, and said: "Fairly difficult for me to comment when I don’t know the circumstances so we are investigating.

"But obviously it doesn’t look great to stop in a cycle lane but let’s find out."

Again, this was deemed inappropriate by large numbers of people.

One man wrote: "You could say it is completely wrong to park in a cycle lane, rather than it not 'looking great'.

"Makes it sound like you’re more worried about the perception than actual safety, and the law."

Mr King later responded to another comment asking if he was going to do anything about the incident.

He replied: "I am, thanks", alongside an image of cycling safety stickers.

He later said he was waiting for the full facts to emerge, and added: "I would rather base [my] comments on facts but obviously accept that it is generally wrong to stop in a cycle lane."

https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385

It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the kerb
so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think" that
that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best way to
arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

On 17/05/2021 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:
The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of
his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.
....
https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385


It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the
kerb so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think"
that that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best
way to arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog and
park on the pavement?

BTW, anyone using the phrase "absolutely 100% OBVIOUS" is no position to
use the phrase "Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence" in
the next sentence.

On Monday, May 17, 2021 at 9:45:07 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog and
park on the pavement?

QUOTE:

"It is a criminal offence to park on a cycle lane bordered by a solid white line".

eburtthebike | 1842 posts | 23 hours ago
4 likes


Edmund King is well known for his support of cycling, so I'm rather suprised at his weak response to one of his employees blocking the cycle lane and breaking the law to do so. Hawkinspeter is right, he should have been much more forthright, honest and condemnatory.


https://road.cc/sites/default/files/...bxmaeq3cs.jpeg

On 17/05/2021 08:50 am, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2021 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:

The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of
his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.
...
https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385

It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the
kerb so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think"
that that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best
way to arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog and
park on the pavement?

Because that would cause danger for pedestrians (and is unnecessary if
the carriageway is wide enough).

BTW, anyone using the phrase "absolutely 100% OBVIOUS" is no position to
use the phrase "Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence" in
the next sentence.

So you say.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 9:18:49 PM UTC+1, wrote:
I'm curious what facts would change the legality (and morality) of parking a van there. I can only think that maybe the driver suffered an unexpected health incident and was forced to suddenly stop driving, but then why is there no sign of an attending ambulance and also why are there no hazard lights on the van (if they weren't - a still photo could have been taken between flashes)?

What he (Edmund King) should have said was "This is clearly unacceptable: we will be conducting an immediate investigation and will determine whether the driver can be re-trained or re-employed. We do not tolerate such thoughtless and selfish behaviour in any of our employees."

reply quote

Avatar
alexls replied to hawkinspeter | 95 posts | 1 day ago
1 like


RTA s21 (link is external) is quite clear.

I'm assuming (pretty safely IMO) no lawful authority had been obtained and that the AA wasn't there to save life*, extinguish a fire, maintain the cycle track, or carrying out undertaking.

*on your charitable "unexpected health incident" get-out, he'd have had to illegally park before getting out, open the side door, and then have his unexpected life-threatening incident.

hawkinspeter replied to alexls | 6409 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe he recognised symptoms of an oncoming heart attack, so immediately parked up and opened the side door to grab some medication that he'd foolishly put in with his tools. Or possibly he saw a ped in need of medical assistance and he immediately parked up and grabbed his first aid kit from the back of the van and put his previous paramedic training to use.

Alternatively, he just didn't give a **** about blocking a cycle lane.

On 17/05/2021 14:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2021 08:50 am, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2021 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:

The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of
his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.
...
https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385


It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the
kerb so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think"
that that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best
way to arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog
and park on the pavement?

Because that would cause danger for pedestrians (and is unnecessary if
the carriageway is wide enough).

Right-oh. Thank for confirming that motorist convenience overrides
cyclist safety.

BTW, anyone using the phrase "absolutely 100% OBVIOUS" is no position
to use the phrase "Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence"
in the next sentence.

So you say.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.

And thank you for taking note of my comment.

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 9:18:49 PM UTC+1, wrote:
I'm curious what facts would change the legality (and morality) of parking a van there. I can only think that maybe the driver suffered an unexpected health incident and was forced to suddenly stop driving, but then why is there no sign of an attending ambulance and also why are there no hazard lights on the van (if they weren't - a still photo could have been taken between flashes)?

What he (Edmund King) should have said was "This is clearly unacceptable: we will be conducting an immediate investigation and will determine whether the driver can be re-trained or re-employed. We do not tolerate such thoughtless and selfish behaviour in any of our employees."

reply quote

Avatar
alexls replied to hawkinspeter | 95 posts | 1 day ago
1 like


RTA s21 (link is external) is quite clear.

I'm assuming (pretty safely IMO) no lawful authority had been obtained and that the AA wasn't there to save life*, extinguish a fire, maintain the cycle track, or carrying out undertaking.

*on your charitable "unexpected health incident" get-out, he'd have had to illegally park before getting out, open the side door, and then have his unexpected life-threatening incident.

hawkinspeter replied to alexls | 6409 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe he recognised symptoms of an oncoming heart attack, so immediately parked up and opened the side door to grab some medication that he'd foolishly put in with his tools. Or possibly he saw a ped in need of medical assistance and he immediately parked up and grabbed his first aid kit from the back of the van and put his previous paramedic training to use.

Alternatively, he just didn't give a **** about blocking a cycle lane.

On 17/05/2021 06:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/2021 14:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2021 08:50 am, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2021 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:

The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of
his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.
...
https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385



It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the
kerb so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think"
that that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best
way to arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog
and park on the pavement?

Because that would cause danger for pedestrians (and is unnecessary if
the carriageway is wide enough).

Right-oh. Thank for confirming that motorist convenience overrides
cyclist safety.

*Pedestrian safety" is the over-riding concern. We are already well
aware that you care nothing for that.

BTW, anyone using the phrase "absolutely 100% OBVIOUS" is no position
to use the phrase "Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence"
in the next sentence.

So you say.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.

And thank you for taking note of my comment.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.

On 19/05/2021 01:02, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2021 06:07 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/2021 14:55, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2021 08:50 am, TMS320 wrote:

On 17/05/2021 00:54, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2021 09:18 pm, wrote:

The president of the AA said it 'doesn't look great' after one of
his company's vans was pictured parked in a cycle lane.
...
https://road.cc/content/news/it-does...le-lane-283385




It is absolutely 100% OBVIOUS that an emergency services vehicle
(including any breakdown service) has to be stopped adjacent to the
kerb so as to leave the maximum space for passing traffic.

Does anyone seriously have so little intelligence that they "think"
that that a foot or two between the vehicle and the kerb is the best
way to arrange things?

Mason?

If anyone would answer "yes", you are it.

To get out of the way of "passing traffic", why not go the whole hog
and park on the pavement?

Because that would cause danger for pedestrians (and is unnecessary
if the carriageway is wide enough).

Right-oh. Thank for confirming that motorist convenience overrides
cyclist safety.

*Pedestrian safety" is the over-riding concern. We are already well
aware that you care nothing for that.

We are well aware of your ignorance in such matters.

BTW, anyone using the phrase "absolutely 100% OBVIOUS" is no
position to use the phrase "Does anyone seriously have so little
intelligence" in the next sentence.

So you say.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.

And thank you for taking note of my comment.

You know how highly valued your opinions are.