Daft lady on bike.

[hellosailor]

I?m confused, have you read the original post? I?m responding to the exact subject raised..

[rendelharris]

Look at my second post where I said it was acceptable if the lady in question was using proper equipment. Ap b has said nothing to suggest she wasn't. Here and elsewhere she's made it clear she wants kids carried on bikes or in trailers banned, full stop.

[hellosailor]

Wrongly or rightly I assumed when the OP said ?perched? they meant precariously balanced not in a child seat. My point was very much about adults who balance kids on their bikes without seats which is not an uncommon sight, not about cyclists who use child bike seats. I meant my doc friend said he and his colleagues were appalled by that, not children in proper seats to be clear..

[ianr]

There was a daft lady went biking,

Though it wasn't to everyone's liking.

[Earl Aelfheah]

hellosailor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My point was very much about adults

> who balance kids on their bikes without seats

> which is not an uncommon sight

Really? This fells like a very uncommon sight to me. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

[jimlad48]

I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should exercise due caution, pedestrians should not dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

My unscientific observation is that many cyclists when politely challenged on clearly breaking these rules become exceptionally aggressive and offensive from the off, even though they are utterly in the wrong. There is no reason, or excuse to jump a red light or ride on the pavement - full stop, end of discussion.

The other day, I must confess to shouting at a cyclist that I thought he was a complete wanker - which is very unusual for me to swear at a cyclist. The reason why was I watched him cycle straight through a red light in Camberwell, on a complex four way junction involving multiple red lights where it is 'blind' - e.g due to the staggered layout, high walls and intervening terrain, you cannot see what the other road users are up to, and it is not possible to see the other lights or what colour they are.

He rode straight into traffic, with a young child on the back of his bike without a helmet on. It was low light, he had no reflective gear on and any cars coming would not have seen him until it was too late. This is criminally irresponsible behaviour that put his child at risk for no reason. Why was it so important for him not to wait a minute to ensure he could cycle safely, rather than risk his childs life?

[Earl Aelfheah]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the

> road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should

> exercise due caution, pedestrians should not

> dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists

> should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

No one would disagree

> My unscientific observation is that many cyclists

> when politely challenged on clearly breaking these

> rules become exceptionally aggressive and

> offensive from the off, even though they are

> utterly in the wrong.

This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often that cyclists are confronted about their behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave aggressively however one is being transported.

I just don't get the point in these types of threads. Clearly no one is going to defend criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or accelerating through red lights? We don't think 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'. Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the transgression with the mode of transport?

[rendelharris]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe everyone has a responsibility to use the

> road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should

> exercise due caution, pedestrians should not

> dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists

> should not jump red lights or ride on pavements.

This appears to imply that only cyclists jump red lights - stand at any junction or crossing in this area and you'll see two or three cars driving through the lights after they've turned red on a regular basis.

> My unscientific observation is that many cyclists

> when politely challenged on clearly breaking these

> rules become exceptionally aggressive and

> offensive from the off, even though they are

> utterly in the wrong.

Whereas car drivers are exceptionally reasonable and open to criticism, aren't they? I've virtually given up trying to point out errors to drivers round here after having been spat on, threatened with knives, had bottles and boiling coffee thrown at me and had vehicles deliberately driven at me.

Twats are twats, on bikes, in cars, walking or sitting in the saloon bar. Your post implies that somehow cyclists are a special case, worse than others. This is not so.

[jimlad48]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimlad48 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I believe everyone has a responsibility to use

> the

> > road in an appropriate manner. Drivers should

> > exercise due caution, pedestrians should not

> > dawdle or walk out unexpectedly, and cyclists

> > should not jump red lights or ride on

> pavements.

>

> No one would disagree

>

> > My unscientific observation is that many

> cyclists

> > when politely challenged on clearly breaking

> these

> > rules become exceptionally aggressive and

> > offensive from the off, even though they are

> > utterly in the wrong.

>

> This is not my experience. I have seen plenty of

> 'road rage' drivers. It is probably more often

> that cyclists are confronted about their

> behaviour, simply because they are not sealed off

> in a car. Clearly it is wrong to behave

> aggressively however one is being transported.

>

> I just don't get the point in these types of

> threads. Clearly no one is going to defend

> criminally irresponsible behaviour, but how often

> do we see cars tearing down the road at speed, or

> accelerating through red lights? We don't think

> 'bloody car drivers', we think 'what an idiot'.

> Why with bikes, uniquely, do we associate the

> transgression with the mode of transport?

Last week I was told in blunt terms 'go and have sex with myself' three times by cyclists when I pointed out to them that they were riding on the pavement.

The reason it seems to be cyclists targeted is because uniquely among road users, they can make effective use of both roads and pavements. I don't see cars driving on pavements, and I rarely see pedestrians using the road.

The simple fact is that all road users can and do use it irresponsibly. However, as a pedestrian the worst behaviour I see repeatedly comes from cyclists - I have been threatened and abused repeatedly for politely pointing out that people are riding on pavements or throguh red lights towards me.

By all means mention drivers, but the problem i have with cyclists is the mentality which is 'well drivers do it too so lets blame them as well', not 'we need to put our house in order, lets accept blame and improve and hope others do so as well'. A bit of humility, less arrogance and a lot less aggression towards other road users would be appreciated.

Said as a non car or bike owning pedestrian fed up of nearly being run over by bikes.

[Blah Blah]

The whole problem with this debate is that it is biased in regards to type of highway user. Pedestrians are not interacting with vehicles on a pavement, so of course cyclists are branded the worse of the two, just as on the roads, cyclists brand drivers as worse and vice versa. The vast majority of accidents happen because one or more highway users do not use due care and attention, and no single type of road user has a monopoly on that.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The reality of course, is that cars cause a much bigger problem than cyclists in general. They kill a lot more people, which is about as antisocial as one can get. So perhaps uniquely, there is something about the mode of transport itself that is problematic. In terms of people travelling by bike, there are some that act like asshats, but they probably act like asshats even when they're on foot.

These threads always bring out claims of almost constant misbehaviour by huge numbers of people, specifically when they're travelling by bike. Who was really, nearly runover three time in a week on the pavement? I've never had it happen to me, (except once, as it happens, by a car cutting across the pavement as it careered at speed around a corner) - these are rare occurrences. The point is that the people who behave like idiots in their car, probably also act like idiots when they're on their bike.

I think the real problem with the perceptions of cyclists is probably more subtly psychological. It's seen as 'out of place' and a bit other. Like I say, when we see a car speeding down a quite road (which is incredibly dangerous) we think 'what a prat', not 'bloody car drivers'. The same is not true of bad behaviour witnessed of someone on a bike.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... apologies for my inability to type btw.

[rendelharris]

Very well put rrr. Like you, I have never been "nearly runover" by a cyclist ("nearly runover" of course means "wasn't runover"). I simply don't recognise these descriptions of pavements swarming with cyclists; I walk round the area a lot and see maybe one a week, if that. You're quite right, it is all about perceptions - one cyclist running a red (not that I condone that) is observed as more heinous than a hundred cars driving in excess of the speed limit - that doesn't even register as something that's happening for most people.

[JoeLeg]

I think part of the problem is that those cyclists that do break the road law - and they are very few comparatively - know that they?re doing it and have it already justified in their mind; as such they respond forcefully to anyone who challenges them.

That?s why I feel the cycling ?community? (I?m assuming such a thing exists, as it were) is the best forum to address the issue. Pressure from one?s peers is more likely to be effective than any pedestrian or driver yelling at them.

[rendelharris]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That?s why I feel the cycling ?community? (I?m

> assuming such a thing exists, as it were) is the

> best forum to address the issue. Pressure from

> one?s peers is more likely to be effective than

> any pedestrian or driver yelling at them.

To be honest Joe, now cycling's so mainstream, there's really no more a cycling "community" than there is a driving "community" - there are some subgroups like racers, couriers etc, but generally it's as diverse as drivers - that's why it's quite annoying when people tar all cyclists with the same brush.

[Nigello]

I agree with Rendel. You see law-abiding cyclists (the majority of them) made up of teens, older people, parents with children, couriers and non law-abiding cyclists made up of a variety of people. If they burn a red light or ride on the pavement or without lights, it doesn't matter who they are - they're still acting irresponsibly and/or illegally. (I saw four young teens on their bikes go through a red light, all without bike lights, the other evening. Surely their parents must know that their bikes haven't got lights. It would be horrible to think of their having an accident because they couldn't be seen by a motorist/motorcyclist.)

[alex_b]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think part of the problem is that those cyclists

> that do break the road law - and they are very few

> comparatively - know that they?re doing it and

> have it already justified in their mind; as such

> they respond forcefully to anyone who challenges

> them.

Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m sure she?d have been forceful if I could have challenged her, but of course I couldn?t. Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing or the majority of motorists that speed, they all are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in the way cyclists can.

[malumbu]

There was a documentary two or three years ago narrated by an older cabbie about cycling on Channel 4. It was remarkably balanced seeing cycling, good and bad, from every angle.

Part of this followed some younger cyclists who cycle like crazy for thrills. Sadly this was staged with some stunt cyclists rather than out in the real world.

After seeing this one day I was gingerly rolling through a short one way piece of road using my feet to push when two or three cyclists came through at speed (again going the wrong way). I followed them at speed all the way up to the Elephant after which I ran out of puff.

What a wonderful adrenaline/endorphin rush. Think of me as you wish but it was a great natural high (not to be repeated I hasten to add).

There's far worse things in life that what these guys did. Sense of perspective please.

[Earl Aelfheah]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I think part of the problem is that those

> cyclists

> > that do break the road law - and they are very

> few

> > comparatively - know that they?re doing it and

> > have it already justified in their mind; as

> such

> > they respond forcefully to anyone who

> challenges

> > them.

>

> Isn?t more that cyclists can be challenged because

> they?re not in a sound isolated metal boxes? The

> driver who almost ran me over as I was crossing

> the zebra crossing on East Dulwich Grove was

> completely oblivious because she had her iPhone in

> front of her face. I?m sure she knew she was doing

> it and had justified it to herself somehow, I?m

> sure she?d have been forceful if I could have

> challenged her, but of course I couldn?t.

> Similarly the red light jumpers at every crossing

> or the majority of motorists that speed, they all

> are choosing to do so, but cannot be challenged in

> the way cyclists can.

Exactly. If it were possible to challenge motorists about their behaviour in the same way it often is with cyclists, then I?m sure the responses would be similar.

[Earl Aelfheah]

After all, ?cyclist? and ?drivers? aren?t different people. They?re the same people moving around in different ways.

[cella]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Very well put rrr. Like you, I have never been

> "nearly runover" by a cyclist ("nearly runover" of

> course means "wasn't runover"). I simply don't

> recognise these descriptions of pavements swarming

> with cyclists; I walk round the area a lot and see

> maybe one a week, if that. You're quite right, it

> is all about perceptions - one cyclist running a

> red (not that I condone that) is observed as more

> heinous than a hundred cars driving in excess of

> the speed limit - that doesn't even register as

> something that's happening for most people.

Not the case. Unfortunately (have posted on this previously)I have been cannoned into twice on the pavements from behind - simply cyclists choosing to ride the busy pavement on ED Road to cut across by the children's play area - I fell over and both sped off when they realised what they'd done without a backward glance to check I was ok. Also am fairly often obliged to get out of the way of people cycling on pavements. Loads of experiencing shouty cyclists going through red lights, mainly at the junction of CP Road. So wrong.

[rendelharris]

How can someone's experience be "not the case" and "so wrong"? I assume you're implying my experience is made up, which is simply impolite. I'm not doubting your experience nor your perception of what you see, even though I have dozens of friends in this area and as far as I'm aware not one of them has ever been knocked down by a cyclist once, let alone twice, though several have been hurt in accidents involving motor vehicles. That doesn't make what you say untrue, you have a different experience and perceptions, is all.

If by cutting across by the children's play area you mean the diagonal path from Adys Road to East Dulwich Road, that is actually a shared path.

[JoeLeg]

It?s a fair point that cyclists can be challenged and drivers can?t be, I do concede that. I also concede that drivers who have already made a conscious decision to ignore the rules of the road would likely be rude and defensive.

Upon reflection, maybe I find it so annoying from cyclists because somehow I expect better ofcthem? Growing up in London one somehow becomes used to bad behaviour from drivers and I know I instinctively show extra caution precisely because I know people can and will drive like idiots (personally I would demolish the car of every driver who thinks it?s ok to make a turn without signalling, but that?s why I?m not in charge).

I suppose I just imagine that cyclists are better behaved, but of course that?s not true because humans are humans everywhere you go.

[Chick]

Just wait till we get "AI" driver less cars.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The reality of course, is that cars cause a much

> bigger problem than cyclists in general. They kill

> a lot more people, which is about as antisocial as

> one can get. So perhaps uniquely, there is

> something about the mode of transport itself that

> is problematic. In terms of people travelling by

> bike, there are some that act like asshats, but

> they probably act like asshats even when they're

> on foot.

>

> These threads always bring out claims of almost

> constant misbehaviour by huge numbers of people,

> specifically when they're travelling by bike. Who

> was really, nearly runover three time in a week on

> the pavement? I've never had it happen to me,

> (except once, as it happens, by a car cutting

> across the pavement as it careered at speed around

> a corner) - these are rare occurrences. The point

> is that the people who behave like idiots in their

> car, probably also act like idiots when they're on

> their bike.

>

> I think the real problem with the perceptions of

> cyclists is probably more subtly psychological.

> It's seen as 'out of place' and a bit other. Like

> I say, when we see a car speeding down a quite

> road (which is incredibly dangerous) we think

> 'what a prat', not 'bloody car drivers'. The same

> is not true of bad behaviour witnessed of someone

> on a bike.

[cella]

cella Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Very well put rrr. Like you, I have never been

> > "nearly runover" by a cyclist ("nearly runover"

> of

> > course means "wasn't runover"). I simply don't

> > recognise these descriptions of pavements

> swarming

> > with cyclists; I walk round the area a lot and

> see

> > maybe one a week, if that. You're quite right,

> it

> > is all about perceptions - one cyclist running

> a

> > red (not that I condone that) is observed as

> more

> > heinous than a hundred cars driving in excess

> of

> > the speed limit - that doesn't even register as

> > something that's happening for most people.

>

> Not the case. Unfortunately (have posted on this

> previously)I have been cannoned into twice on the

> pavements from behind - simply cyclists choosing

> to ride the busy pavement on ED Road to cut across

> by the children's play area - I fell over and both

> sped off when they realised what they'd done

> without a backward glance to check I was ok. Also

> am fairly often obliged to get out of the way of

> people cycling on pavements. Loads of experiencing

> shouty cyclists going through red lights, mainly

> at the junction of CP Road. So wrong.

"Not the case" - just because you or friends haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen - clearly it does.

"So wrong" - I feel it's disingenuous to say that not much cycling happens on pavements/going through red lights - quite the reverse in my opinion and so wrong.

The cyclists were on the pavement before cutting through to the shared route near the playground - that was the problem