Cycling on Pavements

[Waseley]

I suggest you reread my post, I was telling an anecdote about an agressive driver who I suspect is also an agressive cyclist.

After saying you like cycling you are off on another rant against cyclists. You have confused me. I didn't say I went out of my way to block traffic. You sound rather obsessed! Back to my earlier point of share the road and share the love.

[Rockets]

Just did reread your post. You chose not to use the cycle lane and a driver, who also claimed to be a cyclist, remonstrated with you for doing so. Pretty clear to me and pretty clear why it demonstrates my point that much of the ire aimed at cyclists is self-inflicted. If infrastructure has been provided why not use it - it's there for a reason and that's yours, and others', safety?

[Waseley]

Good heavens. There is plenty to discuss on cyclists and pavement riding. Yet you seem to have hijacked this thread with your blanket views on cyclists and your issues about the LTNs.

Traffic calmed road. Driver tries to get through a tight gap. Cyclist refuses to be intimidated ; doesn't matter how good or bad the cyclist is cycling, The car driver needs to back off. Would you condone the driver running me over as it was my fault, law of the jungle etc?

Please stop being ridiculous.

[Rockets]

Agree the driver should have backed off but if there was a cycle lane why didn't you use it, surely then this incident would not have occurred and is the exact reason tbe cycle lane is provided?

You're "no compulsion to use it" comment validates the exact point I was making (and it seems to me) the driver was making too.

Would you have been conceding to intimidation if you had used the cycle lane? To be fair your use of language is again validating the point I was making.

[DuncanW]

"No compulsion to use it" is not a narrative - it's written into the Highway Code. I get that you don't like it though.

There are all sorts of reasons why a cyclist may not be in the segregated cycle-lane - none of them excuse dangerous driving, do they?

[goldilocks]

You have said twice now 'it looked as though he was trying to break the mirror' - i'm saying it didn't. The point is you don't know, but yet again you present your opinion as fact.

I'd imagine that up the road the driver had endangered the cyclists life - thats generally how these things go. Fear and adrenaline make people react. In an ideal world you wouldn't hit windows - but then in an ideal world cyclists would be segregated from rubbish drivers (or even good ones who have lapses in concentration - cos you know, we're human!), or failing that, drivers would take extra care around those who they have more likelihood of injuring.

Anyway - the precise rights and wrongs of this case aren't going to be known or determined here.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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.

[first mate]

I think we can all agree the driver's actions were despicable, dangerous and inexcusable. However, we should not seek to excuse or explain the behaviour of the cyclist either.

There does seem to be an almost tribal element to some of this that is really unhelpful, where one element seeks to provoke the other (recent videos of cyclists driving in the middle of the road, turning back and laughing at cars behind them, being one small example). While on my bicycle the other day on a quiet, side street, a car coming the other way deliberately did a mock swerve into and then away from me, causing me to lose balance. That driver was being provocative, I was not in his way.

I really think it cuts both ways. Additionally, given the huge amount of public money invested in cycle ways it is arguably another form of provocation not to use them, unless for very good reason.

[legalalien]

Out of interest, does anyone have a feel (or better still, some data) of what proportion of cyclists ride the main part of roads rather than using segregated infrastructure where available? Obviously it will vary from road to road.

Where segregated infrastructure is put in, and then data on increased cycling numbers is recorded, are those numbers based on the number of cyclists using the segregated infrastructure, or the number of cyclists overall? If overall, then this doesn't necessarily tell you whether it's the change to the infrastructure that has caused an increase in numbers, or some other factor? Does segregated infrastructure help protect beginner cyclists from more experienced cyclists / is that part of its point (if I was an experienced cyclist in London and there was a sudden influx of slow newbies I might well support getting them out of my way, I suspect)!

[Rockets]

First - that was the very point I was trying to make at the outset - how some on the pro-cycle lobby can't ever admit that, like we do for drivers, there are some idiots around who are giving everyone else a bad name.

Unfortunately, many of the comments here show how real that problem is.

A lot of the previous comments demonstrate how some seem to really struggle to see the world beyond a myopic view of "well, the driver must have done something to create the aggression therefore the aggression was justified".

You can't justify aggression on the basis of "fear and adrenaline" for one party then attack the other party for responding when under the same duress.

And that's where I take issue with Jeremy Vine on this (and some of the posters on this forum). Both the cyclist and driver were in the wrong (weighting more so to the driver because of their action of throwing the bottle) but you have to call out both sides if we are to make progress.

We can all unite around calling out the behaviour of bad drivers but we also need to do the same in regard to bad cyclists - and not be afraid to do so for fear we are "letting our fellow cyclists down" somehow by doing so.

[Waseley]

Wow, you do have issues.

Returning to the original subject I suspect:

Some don't care about rules

Some don't know that it isn't allowed

Some cycle on pavements as the roads are dangerous

Some consider the roads are dangerous, or don't have the confidence

Some use this for convenience eg a one way street

For most it won't be part of any campaign against cars.

As the changes to the Highway Code increase the awareness that cyclists, as road users, have the same rights as motorised transport then more will feel confident to cycle on the road.

[Rockets]

But I have a point don't I? ;-)

[DuncanW]

No, not as far as I can see.

The cyclist kind of slaps the car window. You represented that as him trying to 'smash the drivers door and mirror' - that is patently not true.

The cyclist then gets back on his bike to ride away and the driver throws a glass bottle at him.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume there had been an incident prior to this exchange. You can argue that doesn't excuse the cyclists behaviour but if you think that slapping a car window in anger is on parity with throwing a glass bottle at someone, quite frankly you need your head looking at.

[Rockets]

My goodness me apparently I have issues and my head needs looking at....wow....not sure you can say that nowadays can you....?

Try to keep it civil.....if you can't engage without being aggressive/demeaning it's probably best you don't bother.

[DuncanW]

Sorry Rockets, perhaps not the best choice of phrase.

I don't suppose you'd care to respond to the substance of the post and walk me through how you saw a cyclist trying to smash a car wing-mirror in that clip... and how an angry slap on a car window is much the same as throwing a glass bottle at someone.

[Eggles]

I had to swerve my bike off the pavement to avoid a pedestrian the other day who didn't even look before lifting their toddler out of the car. I nearly dropped my coffee. I yelled something and he yelled back but i didn't hear him because my ear pods are noise cancelling...

lol

[Rockets]

Very much not a good turn of phrase at all DuncanW. Between you and Waseley's comments you have illustrated how aggressive some people get about this subject - how tribal some people have become about cycling. I have been very balanced and clear about the points I was raising but some people took it as an attack on cyclists and demonstrated that aggressive tribalism that seems to be pitting cyclists against every other road user. As a cyclist I hate it, that the them vs us attitude exists amongst some in the cycle and vehicle communities.

But thank you for apologising.

My point was clear from the beginning - if you criticise the car driver (as I did) for throwing the bottle you have to criticise the cyclist for hitting the car. We don't know what happened further up the road, nor does Jeremy Vine, we can all guess but the cyclist should not be hitting the car - and let's be honest his body language is very aggressive and threatening and he hits the car with real force on the first occasion because you can hear it across a busy road - for all intents and purposes it will sound to the driver as if someone is trying to break the window.

You can't default to the "well the driver must have done something to deserve that" attitude which so many have posted on here.

P.S. I thought in the early part of the video the cyclist is reaching for the mirror but it looks like he may also be pointing at the driver - it's too grainy to tell upon closure inspection. But if I got that wrong then I apologise for that - he certainly hits the car window twice - once with massive force, the second time more gently - I can't help but think that it could have hurt his hand - as a cyclist in all weathers myself I can't imagine how hitting glass that hard with a cold hand would be good for you!

Can we not all agree that both the cyclist and driver were wrong?

[Marcia123]

-- moved topic --

[malumbu]

Welcome to the Lounge all, some in particular! You'll find this the place to go for broader debate.

[ianr]

Feel the width.

[malumbu]

Never mind the quality