Cycling on Pavements

[heartblock]

Cycling a lot, but not so often now, motorbike for on call, but not any more, car for visiting parents, family in the North East and South West (but not for the last two years) , 4-wheel drive with trailer for 8 years and hot-air balloon for 8 years (another story).

Chosen mode now

Commute 10K walk and 10 minute train

Weekends Walking, bus

Going out - Walking, train, tube and occasional Uber

Car battery - probably very low.

Criticising bad cycling, bad driving, bad motorbiking or even rude pedestrians doesn't mean that anyone dislikes anyone else..does it?

[sand12]

Tom and Belulah represent the very ableist cyclist attitudes that the original post was talking about.

You assume any objections to your choice to cycle on pavements and footpaths is justified by your (legitimate) concern for safety.

I?m a cyclist myself and also cycle with a little one. We use the roads and when it is safe and I am secure in my child?s ability to navigate and be aware of hazards. When it isn?t, we dismount and walk our cycles on the pavements because that is the most considerate and safest option for ourselves as well as the pedestrians on the footpath. We plan journey times taking this into account, not just based on the shortest, fastest, or most convenient option for us.

Your choice to cycle on the road while your child is on the footpath or both of you use the footpath may well be safest option for you and your family, but it does show a lack of consideration for others.

The contempt and disdain you hear towards cyclists is partially to do with the risk assessments some, not all cyclists are making about their own family and not taking into the safety of anyone else around you in your community. It demonstrates a lack of empathy and a sense of entitlement that is not very civic minded at all.

Tom, your post and many cyclists like you assume that any objections to your views are people who are somehow the ?non-fit? part of the population who you have a clear hatred of and despise. It is condescending and ableist. I have friends and neighbours of all ages, disabilities, and body shapes who cycle. Most are very considerate cyclists because they actually care about their neighbours who also use the footpaths.

Same does also go for scooters too. I saw an elderly neighbour get clipped on Woodwarde by a LO on a scooter a few years ago. Not child?s fault, the parent was miles behind distracted and not paying attention to where the child going at speed. It was extremely upsetting and could have been far more dangerous to the elderly person. If you are elderly, frail, blind, deaf, or have sensory issues, not matter your age you are vulnerable on the footpath and having any wheeled rider coming by you is startling. Your reaction time is slower and you might not be able to move quick enough to avoid a collision.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> tom1975 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I would like to invite Nigello, CPR Dave,

> Rockets

> > and anyone else to join me next Wednesday on

> the

> > school cycle run from ED to Dulwich so you can

> all

> > experience what it's like to ride in London

> beside

> > buses and cars. I think it would be enjoyable

> and

> > educational for you and hopefully reduce the

> > amount of hostility you feel towards cyclists.

> The

> > only way to improve the impression you have is

> to

> > join in the experience for yourself and learn

> from

> > it.

> >

> > We will commute to my childs school and then

> > continue to my office north of the West End.

> That

> > includes going up Dog Kennel hill at decent

> speed

> > then past Kings and through Camberwell, onto

> > Elephant Castle and Waterloo, all in peak-hour

> > traffic. I hope you're of reasonable fitness

> > because I need to be at work for 9:15am.

> >

> > You can make your own way home and we'll meet

> the

> > morning after to repeat the journey and discuss

> > what you've learnt and why cyclists may choose

> to

> > jump red lights to remain safe and why children

> > ride on the footpath.

> >

> > Anyone interested can meet me on the corner of

> > Friern Rd and Goodrich Rd at 8:20am next

> > Wednesday.

>

>

> Tom, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Used

> to cycle from East Dulwich to Hammersmith for work

> and DKH was a great way to start and finish my

> journey - the thigh-burn! I used to love cycling

> to work it was a great way to start the day - 45

> minutes of cycling through some lovely parts of

> London. I hasten to add, I deliberately cycled

> routes to avoid the busiest roads.

>

> Red light jumpers used to annoy me when I cycled

> because so few cyclists seemed to believe they

> applied to them - often they would take very vocal

> offence that I had actually stopped for red lights

> - sometimes there wasn't much bonhomie between

> supposed like-minded individuals.

>

> Some cyclists believe rules don't apply to them

> and, as per this thread demonstrates, there is a

> problem that needs addressing.

[ab29]

Well said Sand12.

I don't drive or cycle but walk a lot.

From my experience, I can say that 90% of cyclists do not acknowledge the fact that the traffic lights apply to them.

Pavements are for pedestrians and should remain so.

[Nigello]

More like sand12, fewer like Tom1975 and Beulah.

[Nigello]

I have NO problem with children riding on the footpath, as I stated in my previous post. Using children as an excuse to do so, rather than showing them the optimal way - getting off and pushing - is what I object to.

[heartblock]

There is a lot of ableist thinking in the LCC - it's not the only 'ist' by the way.

[Annie5]

ab29 Wrote:

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

> Well said Sand12.

>

> I don't drive or cycle but walk a lot.

>

> From my experience, I can say that 90% of cyclists

> do not acknowledge the fact that the traffic

> lights apply to them.

>

> Pavements are for pedestrians and should remain

> so.

I totally agree with you. I have noticed that cyclists going through red lights is the norm rather than the exception. When walking on the pavement I frequently have cyclists moving up behind me expecting me to move out of their way. I don't anymore. I behave as though I am deaf (for all they know I might be).

[Zaardvark]

As a walker and a cyclist - it is not true that 90% of cyclists skip lights. There are junctions where it is more common but the majority do not skip lights. It does seem you cannot win as a cyclist - when cycling with my son on the road you get drivers honking at you to get off the road, if you get on the pavement then drivers shout "wankers" at you. More kindness would go a long way on all sides. These (LTNs) are government policies, at a time when pollution is high/we are realising the damage it does, the need to reduce CO2 levels, and during a period of time when we are switching to electric and then self-driving (and possibly fewer) personal vehicles. Are we going to have 20-30 years of these conversations, or are we going to start to realise that we are complaining about the tide going out?

[legalalien]

Interesting piece on Sky about how poorly the changes to the Highway Code have been publicised

https://news.sky.com/story/highway-code-revised-cyclists-given-priority-in-new-rules-as-drivers-ordered-to-keep-15-metres-distance-when-overtaking-12521747

Highway Code revised: Cyclists given priority in new rules as drivers ordered to keep 1.5-metres distance when overtaking

[Nigello]

Kindness is NOT the solution to everything, and it certainly does not stop you from being in or causing an accident. Rationality and facts and an awareness that there are thought-out rules and laws will get you much further than a Hallmark card epithet.

[Waseley]

Excellent post Zardvark, I hope others take note. My driving instructor told me to keep 2 metres from cyclists as they may wobble. Not the correct reason but the right rule, which has stayed with me for ever. A minority of motorists (similarly it is a minority of cyclists who do wrong things) don't give cyclists appropriate room. A larger number, maybe a majority, don't consider that cyclists have the same rights as road users. Greater kindness in sharing road space, would go a long way

[Marcia123]

Well woke up this morning to find cyclists do have more rights over cars on the road. Cars can only overtake by leaving at least 1.5m space. Basically cars need to leave a width of a bus lane. Or don't overtake.

The moral is cyclists you've got the road to yourselves no need to cycle on the pavement.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Marcia123 Wrote:

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

> Cars can only overtake by leaving at least 1.5m space. Basically

> cars need to leave a width of a bus lane. Or don't

> overtake.

Min recommend width for a bus lane is 3m ie twice the amount you think. A bus will not fit through a 1.5m gap. Maybe a good illustration of why the Highway Code now needs to be more specific about how much free space should be left when cars overtake cyclists.

Interesting to note that some people are huge fans of the Highway Code when it comes to children riding on pavements but absolutely lost their shit when drivers were fined for disobeying bus gate road signs that were perfectly lawful under the, err, Highway Code...

[SE22_2020er]

Excellent post Zardvark. Somewhat of a ruby in the dust that are the usual posts on these forum chats!

[ab29]

The only thing that LTN has achieved so far is pushing more traffic onto the already busy an polluted roads; people living, walking or waitting at bus stops there have slready been exposed to illegal levels of air pollution and noise. Thanks to LTN this is now even worst.

Zaardvark Wrote:

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

> As a walker and a cyclist - it is not true that

> 90% of cyclists skip lights. There are junctions

> where it is more common but the majority do not

> skip lights. It does seem you cannot win as a

> cyclist - when cycling with my son on the road you

> get drivers honking at you to get off the road, if

> you get on the pavement then drivers shout "@#$%&"

> at you. More kindness would go a long way on all

> sides. These (LTNs) are government policies, at a

> time when pollution is high/we are realising the

> damage it does, the need to reduce CO2 levels, and

> during a period of time when we are switching to

> electric and then self-driving (and possibly

> fewer) personal vehicles. Are we going to have

> 20-30 years of these conversations, or are we

> going to start to realise that we are complaining

> about the tide going out?

[Rockets]

The bottom line is that if everyone using roads treated other road users in the way they expect to be treated themselves then everyone could get on swimmingly!

[ab29]

Well, this is true.

[Rockets]

A week is a long time in the world of a pro-cycling lobbyist/antagonist and journalist...;-)

Jan 31st

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2022/jan/31/the-times-editorial-cycling-licences

Feb 5

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1489874544462602240?t=mNIqp-7mJmLYHJPvOr1rDA&s=19

[Waseley]

Hi Rockets, you post numerous times on this thread and LTN, and the two threads could be amalgamated. Yet you tend to refrain from getting into debate about opposing views. Back to my question on the LTN thread. Why the great antipathy towards cyclists?

[Nigello]

It is not antipathy towards cyclists that those who complain have, but only towards those who decide to disobey the law, perhaps citing common sense or having a child with them. More people are cycling (though it is hardly hear Netherlands levels and likely never will) and more are walking/using their wheelchairs, etc. so it stands to reason that there will be more examples of bad and illegal behaviour by all (and yes, that includes pedestrians crossing at non-designated points in the road, wearing all black when it is dark, etc.). So, to avoid that getting worse, just do your best to be rational and lawful. Every time a cyclist just nips through a red (see Dulwich Village) or rides on a footpath(everywhere) then it compounds the problem - people complain and are then branded anti-cyclist rather than anti bad behaviour from cyclists. If you are one of them, please don't.

[Rockets]

I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou" approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like their approach where they seem to think they are the only form of transport that should be allowed to use roads. Many of them talk about driver entitlement yet display the same signs in regard to cycling.

The recent debate around the new Highway Code has been demonstrating this. There is so much misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people are actually going to get injured as a result.

For example, the give way to cyclists continuing ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible directive but the way it has been positioned by both sides of tbe argument is actually leading cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left.

So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of cyclists following - they need to give way to the left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning that.

And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory comments about a vehicle being "specifically designed to kill children" and continuing his own "war on cars".

Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy chastises the driver not the cyclist.

We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not the other and I am glad to see some police starting to police the bad cyclists who are tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the moment I am afraid to say.

[northernmonkey]

I saw that clip rockets. The cyclist hit his palm against the window of the taxi. He didn?t try to smash it as far as I could see- and no car window will smash from that. In retaliation a professional driver (licensed minicab) threw a glass bottle at him.

Your ability to frame events to suit your narrative continues!

[first mate]

In fairness, I think this type of 'pumped up' cyclist has been around for a while. In my mind, they share the same sort of mindset as aggressive motorists. As more of that type of motorist starts to cycle we may see a rise in cyclist road rage. The mindset does not really change, just the mode of transport.

In this instance, the cyclist was incredibly provocative but the driver really caused danger to others by throwing a glass bottle that smashed.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I am a cyclist. I just don't like the way many of

> my cycling colleagues take a "holier than thou"

> approach to lobbying for cycling and I don't like

> their approach where they seem to think they are

> the only form of transport that should be allowed

> to use roads. Many of them talk about driver

> entitlement yet display the same signs in regard

> to cycling.

>

> The recent debate around the new Highway Code has

> been demonstrating this. There is so much

> misinformation out there put out by the anti-cycle

> and pro-cycle lobby due to the "war" that people

> are actually going to get injured as a result.

>

> For example, the give way to cyclists continuing

> ahead as you turn left is an incredibly sensible

> directive but the way it has been positioned by

> both sides of tbe argument is actually leading

> cyclists to believe cars have to giveway to them

> as they wait for you as they turn left. Yet the

> Highway Code states that cyclists must not cycle

> to the left of a vehicle indicating to turn left.

>

> So the new rule was inserted to protect cyclists

> in the immediate turn zone not a flotilla of

> cyclists following - they need to give way to the

> left turning vehicle. But no-one is mentioning

> that.

>

> And I posted Peter Walker's article as on the one

> hand he claims a "war on cyclists" being waged by

> The Times and on the other hand posts inflammatory

> comments about a vehicle being "specifically

> designed to kill children" and continuing his own

> "war on cars".

>

> Some in the cycle lobby have a very myopic view of

> the world. Jeremy Vine posted a video a few days

> ago of a cyclist trying to smash a driver's door

> and mirror at a junction and the driver gets out

> and throws a bottle at the cyclist. Both were

> idiots for doing what they did but Jeremy

> chastises the driver not the cyclist.

>

> We cannot tolerate bad behaviour by one and not

> the other and I am glad to see some police

> starting to police the bad cyclists who are

> tarnishing the reputation for everyone else and

> there are a lot of bad cyclists around at the

> moment I am afraid to say.

>

>

> https://twitter.com/theJeremyVine/status/148827945

> 2001910794?t=si0Egf93POPnEAc4nyqUmg&s=19

[Waseley]

Amused me. As a cyclist I got grief from a middle aged chap in a fastish car in Beckenham. I was on a traffic calmed road and he tried to get through a too tight gap. He told me as a cyclist I should be on the short bike lane. And that he was a cyclist so that made his comments legitimate. Clearly he was an rrrrrs whether behind a wheel or handlebars. He for one needs to understand presumed liability.

Ps it was a quiet road and I was unfamiliar with the bike infrastructure. And there is no compulsion to use it in any case

[Rockets]

Northern and Wasely - in two posts you demonstrate why so many people are taking issue with cyclists at the moment.

1) Northern - you fail to acknowledge that the cyclist was in the wrong. He was as much of an idiot as the driver but you defaulted to that Pavlovian "the cyclist is never wrong" that so many pro-cycle default to. He hits the car window twice with force, he may even have hit the wing mirror (the noise is very loud as it is picked up by Jeremy's mic from the other side of the road) and it looks like he is trying to break the window and or mirror. The drivers' reaction is as bad as the catalyst for it but you cannot defend the cyclist, as much as I am not defending th driver.

2) Wasely - the "no compulsion to use it" narrative is one that also grinds on other road users at the moment (it's a close second to the "I can so I will whether I need to or not" - ride two abreast/ride in the middle of the road + narrative). When I cycle I am mindful of other road users and if there is infrastructure I use it.

I presume you can't see how frustrating it would be to be stuck behind a bike using a carriageway that has cycling infrastructure along it? I suspect as a cyclist himself he felt that you didn't need to be doing that and that he would have been in the bike lane.

As I have said before if every road user treats others as they would like to be treated then everyone could get on swimmingly but there seem to be a lot of my fellow cyclists who seem to think that following the rules and needing to consider other road users does not apply to them.