Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, at around 6.45 in the evening, I was narrowly missed by an adult male racing (well, riding fast) on an electric bike on the pavement in Underhill - the road was at that time entirely clear of traffic. Have others suffered this abusive use of electric bikes, or is this (I sincerely hope) a one-off of thoughtlessness, or indeed even recklessness?

You can ride bikes on the pavement on Dulwich Common between LL and College Road, there are signs clearly marked that show pedestrians and cycles.   

It's something that most people aren't aware of as there are cyclists who still use the road and pedestrians who tell off those cyclists, including myself that I should be on the road.

 

 

7 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

You can ride bikes on the pavement on Dulwich Common between LL and College Road, there are signs clearly marked that show pedestrians and cycles.   

It's something that most people aren't aware of as there are cyclists who still use the road and pedestrians who tell off those cyclists, including myself that I should be on the road.

But not on the pavements in Underhill Road, I believe, which is where this took place!  And I'm not even sure that what is licet for push bikes is also licet for powered bikes, which this was.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

And I'm not even sure that what is licet for push bikes is also licet for powered bikes, which this was.

Depends on the bike.

Normal pedal-assist e-bikes (which includes Lime etc) are treated in law as a bicycle so they can go everywhere a bike can.

"Other" electric bikes which include the majority of those contraptions being ridden by UberEat/Deliveroo etc are already either illegal anyway or they require tax and registration in which case they're treated as electric mopeds and they can't use cycle lanes.

And pavement riding is more or less decriminalised for various reasons. 

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

And pavement riding is more or less decriminalised for various reasons.

If you mean by that 'the police don't bother' - then that would be true of virtually all road traffic offences by cyclists, to a significant number of whom the Highway Code is 'more or less' to quote you, irrelevant. And much other 'crime' locally - shop lifting and mugging is 'more or less decriminalised' under those aegis's. But actually 'decriminalised' does have a specific meaning in law. Something is, or isn't, decriminalised. 'More or less' so carries no weight in law. Practically of course you are right, the police aren't even there to care.

11 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

You can ride bikes on the pavement on Dulwich Common between LL and College Road, there are signs clearly marked that show pedestrians and cycles.   

It's something that most people aren't aware of as there are cyclists who still use the road and pedestrians who tell off those cyclists, including myself that I should be on the road.

 

 

Yeah, and they also cycle on the pavement from the gates down to Gail’s - which isn’t a shared space - blithely criss-crossing with pedestrians and dogs  

 

So was it a LimeBike or similar, or a privately owned e-bike?

Either way I'm not sure the person should be labelled a 'cyclist' as such; they generally tend to be 'users', with no awareness or consideration for others.

I haven't seen or heard of any similar incidents, but have seen more than enough of them dumped in the most thoughtless & obstructive places, which again illustrates the sort of mentality of the users.

13 minutes ago, alice said:

If you drive a car you’re a driver. If  you ride a  cycle you’re a cyclist.  

If you ride a motorbike you're a biker 

But what's the equivalent for a moped driver (keep it clean folks) 

Alice I think the distinction is between pedal cycle users and electric bikes users

No one should be cycling on the pavement, especially on a (generally faster and heavier) e-bike. But "I saw an individual behaving carelessly" does not a thread make; So in comes the group attribution bias and the 'you can't criticise it, because 'they' will silence you' strawman. It's as predictable as it is boring. The individual probably behaves badly however he's travelling, or even when he's not. 

Great post though. Let's have more 'things I saw today' threads please.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
54 minutes ago, alice said:

If you drive a car you’re a driver. If  you ride a  cycle you’re a cyclist.  

Surely using this analogy if you ride a cycle you'd be a rider?

My point is that someone who has an interest in, or passion for, cars is generally termed a 'motorist'. So the term 'cyclist' should really be used only for those with a genuine interest / passion for cycles and cycling, rather than anyone just riding a bike as a means of getting from A to B.

Earl is spot on above - the issue is with antisocial people in general, it's irrelevant what form of transport they use.

It doesn't matter whether it's cyclist or driver. Your either a can or a can't & the person cycling on the pavement was definitely a can't, entitled with no regard for others.

They don't just walk amongst us these days, they also drive & cycle 🙄

Edited by Lebanums
  • Like 1
On 09/06/2023 at 16:20, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why the plural in the subject heading by the way? Were there multiple e-bikes being ridden on multiple pavements? Or did you just see a person behaving carelessly? 

 

Fairly sure it's more the topic of rather than an individual hence the title.

Why are people (yes, more than one person on this thread) being picky about the title?  It's a continuing issue and has been for years with "normal" non e-bike cyclists which is now being exacerbated with the influx of Lime and all that. It's a valid concern for pedestrians. 🤷‍♀️

On 10/06/2023 at 14:08, alice said:

Motorist ? That’s a word from the 50s.  are you suggesting that passion should be a mitigating factor when evaluating, dangerous or illegal activities? 

No, not at all. I'm trying to express that inconsiderate idiots riding e-bikes shouldn't be considered "cyclists". They're just inconsiderate idiots who happen to be using a form of transport. Just as you wouldn't call inconsiderate idiots driving cars "motorists".

It may be considered semantics, but the constant negative, anti-cyclist narrative is very tedious & unwarranted - the vast majority of people who enjoy cycling are considerate, law abiding folk.

Let's not turn this thread into yet another smearing of all cyclists - this is about one inconsiderate idiot who happened to be riding an e-bike dangerously & illegally.

3 hours ago, KalamityKel said:

Fairly sure it's more the topic of rather than an individual hence the title.

Why are people (yes, more than one person on this thread) being picky about the title?  It's a continuing issue and has been for years with "normal" non e-bike cyclists which is now being exacerbated with the influx of Lime and all that. It's a valid concern for pedestrians. 🤷‍♀️

The original post relayed an anecdote about a careless individual behaving badly. Of course, that immediately got turned into a tribal debate about 'cyclists' and 'motorists' (who are most often the same people, at different times). So instead of a post being about inconsiderate behaviour, it becomes about 'us' versus 'them'.

The title was constructed to encourage this, by suggesting that this single incident, was about something else - a widespread, regular and repeated problem. I can confidently say that I have never once come close to being hit by a cyclist whilst walking on the pavement in several decades living here.

Sometimes people behave badly. No one should ride an e-bike on the pavement. But there are several, obvious and tedious rhetorical slights of hand and / or cognitive errors at play here.

Group attribution error, alongside confirmation bias, leads many to notice and remember infringements by individuals travelling on bike and then ascribe it to a whole group of ‘bloody cyclists’ (often while ignoring, or quickly forgetting the myriad of regular and far more dangerous driving infringements, likely by the same individuals)... See also, fundamental attribution error, out-group bias and theories on 'othering' generally.

So yes, 'a guy (who was travelling by bike) passed me on the pavement'. Great story. But not 'Electric bikes being ridden on pavements'.

...unless someone seriously wants to argue that this is a widespread, regular and repeated problem that is making walking in ED dangerous? I don't see evidence of it personally. 

Again great story though. Let's please have lot's more 'an incident annoyed me' posts.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The title was constructed to encourage this, by suggesting that this single incident, was about something else - a widespread, regular and repeated problem. I can confidently say that I have never once come close to being hit by a cyclist whilst walking on the pavement in several decades living here.

As the OP - no it bl**dy wasn't. I specifically ask in the post if this was just an unfortunate one-off, or whether others had experienced it - if this was a common trait of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour then it would be something worth taking action against, if it was just one bad apple then it would be an inappropriate use of scarce resources. I actually said, and I quote myself  'Have others suffered this abusive use of electric bikes, or is this (I sincerely hope) a one-off of thoughtlessness, or indeed even recklessness?'

And to those who think that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't 'inconsiderate and dangerous'... well, enough said!

No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess.

You may not have consciously constructed your post in this way, but I suspect you're just extremely accustomed to this framing of anything to do with 'cyclists' (aka people travelling on a bike) that it comes quite naturally. It's predictable, often repeated and tedious.

Like saying:

Title: Rollerbladers attacking park users

I saw a fight in the park the other day. The instigator was a rollerblader. Is this a general problem? To those who think that it's ok for rollerbladers to attack park users... well, enough said!

Edited by Earl Aelfheah

"No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess."

EarlA

I don't know if you live in ED but, if you do, I find it hard to believe you have not seen anyone cycling on the pavement, including on an e-bike? Remember, this is about ED, not e-bikes in general.

Rather than fall back on your cognitive biases line, how about a solution? If use of e-bikes is on the increase ( with Council support) how are likely breaches like riding bikes of any sort on pavements without dedicated cycle lanes to be 'policed' and 'penalised'?

 

27 minutes ago, first mate said:

Rather than fall back on your cognitive biases line, how about a solution? If use of e-bikes is on the increase ( with Council support) how are likely breaches like riding bikes of any sort on pavements without dedicated cycle lanes to be 'policed' and 'penalised'?

Firstly, it's no more or less prevalent than the countless instances of lawbreaking by drivers (motorists?) which includes driving and parking on the pavement as well as speeding, mobile phone use etc but it's telling that you've only chosen to focus on e-bikes specifically.

Some of it is so harmless that it's not even worth mentioning - I picked up a Lime bike from it's (actually very well parked) pavement location a few days ago, got on it and rode 10m across the pavement to the road. No pedestrians were "nearly killed", no old grannies sent diving for cover. No car drivers were forced to swerve violently to avoid CERTAIN DEATH as I joined the road. 

Most of the illegal e-bikes around the place are the ones being ridden by UberEats / Deliveroo. Basically MTBs with motors and batteries strapped to them, you can buy the kits online. The bikes are already illegal for use so the distinction between pavement and road seems even more arbitrary but society seems to want fast food delivered in 20 mins from moment of order... The gig-economy workers delivering that food are not going to be waiting at red lights - they'll be up and down pavements, they'll ride right to your door - because they know if it's not there in time, they won't get paid. I'm not really justifying their actions but you're not going to stop it with "enforcement", you need to change the whole structure of gig economy and ultra-fast food deliveries.

Also it's generally in their interests not to hit anyone or anything cos the food will get spoiled and/or the delivery will be late and they won't get paid. There are also so many of them that enforcement in terms of stopping and fining would be like swatting ants. You need to go after the companies that offer this service and society needs to understand that if it wants a Big Mac in 15 mins, there's going to be some 'creative' cycling to get it to you. If you want strictly law-abiding riding then the delivery window needs to go out to 1hr.

As I said further up, pavement cycling is more or less decriminalised - the reasons are:
- police resources - yes you could do a blitz but then the police get told off (usually by the very people complaining about pavement cycling) that they're not out catching "real criminals".
- confusion over where it is and isn't allowed; there are so may bits of "shared use" footpath / cyclepath, so many instances where drivers are allowed to cross the pavement (driveways) and so many "uncertain" areas that it gets messy quickly with what is and isn't allowed. See [url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/02/pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-cyclist-fall-car-huntingdon]the recent case of manslaughter where a pedestrian caused a cyclist to fall into the path of traffic[/url] - not even the council were able to categorically say that the area was a shared use path although in the end it was decided that it was.
- kids (accompanied or not) are "allowed" to ride on pavements, again there are certain caveats but that (more or less) gives parents a green light to ride (considerately) with them.

20 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

I specifically ask in the post if this was just an unfortunate one-off, or whether others had experienced it - if this was a common trait of inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour then it would be something worth taking action against, if it was just one bad apple then it would be an inappropriate use of scarce resources. I actually said, and I quote myself  'Have others suffered this abusive use of electric bikes, or is this (I sincerely hope) a one-off of thoughtlessness, or indeed even recklessness?'

It's not an unfortunate one off, but critically it's usually no more than a mild irritant. The hospitals are not full of dying pedestrians, their only epitaph a Deliveroo motif on their forehead. The pavements are not overrun with some sort of Charge of the E-bike Brigade. 🤷

I saw an SUV driver get bored of waiting at the Townley Road lights the other day and he drove up onto the pavement to undercut the traffic and turn left into Calton Avenue. Have others suffered this abusive use of 4x4s or is this (I sincerely hope) a one-off of thoughtlessness, or indeed even recklessness?

  • Like 2
3 hours ago, first mate said:

"No one thinks that riding a powered bike on a pavement isn't inconsiderate and dangerous. But it's another good rhetorical device to ask about 'those that do', if you're looking to be divisive I guess."

EarlA

I don't know if you live in ED but, if you do, I find it hard to believe you have not seen anyone cycling on the pavement, including on an e-bike? Remember, this is about ED, not e-bikes in general.

Rather than fall back on your cognitive biases line, how about a solution? If use of e-bikes is on the increase ( with Council support) how are likely breaches like riding bikes of any sort on pavements without dedicated cycle lanes to be 'policed' and 'penalised'?

 

Who has said that riding a powered bike on a pavement is not inconsiderate? So why suggest that they have? This is, very clearly, a 'strawman' rhetorical device. So is using a title that suggests lot's of e-bikes driving on lot's of pavements, when relaying a tale of an electric bike being ridden on the pavement.

In answer to the question, yes I live in ED and have done for several decades. I've never had someone ride passed me on the pavement endangering or alarming me, but perhaps I'm incredibly lucky?

By all means criticise someone who is behaving dangerously. But I'm not interested in hearing yet more "cyclists running a mock - it' no longer safe to walk on the streets' type stuff, which is what the misleading title implies.

If you look at this forum, one might be forgiven for thinking that bikes are causing significant harm to others, out of all proportion to say, private motor vehicles. If you believe that, then yes, there are some clear cognitive biases at play imo; because there is plenty of objective evidence that it is not the case. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OK, I have been extremely stupid. This is a long and sorry saga, so unless you are into schadenfreude,  or know about laptops and might actually be able to help, you probably need to stop reading here. I got a new laptop last May, with a 2 year guarantee from John Lewis (that was my first mistake, but the laptop met all my requirements at a very good price). I hate OneDrive, and I  had been using Carbonite for backing up files.  When I got the new laptop, the files from my old laptop which had been backed up on Carbonite were downloaded onto it. For tedious reasons originally related to problems with my old laptop, files and folders were duplicated all over the place. Sorting this out wasn't top of my priorities. In an attempt to at least keep new files,  and files edited since I bought the laptop, in one place and completely separate from all the old duplicated  files, I saved them all into folders  on the SSD. However, I didn't restart the Carbonite backup, because my intention was to sort out all the duplicate files first. About a fortnight ago, I bought an external hard drive. My intention was to copy everything on the new laptop onto it before I started deleting any of the duplicate files. I hadn't done that yet because I had to finish doing my accounts and then do my online tax return. So the copying was next on my To Do list. The inevitable happened. Out of the blue, my laptop went into complete meltdown. I was editing a spreadsheet and went into settings to turn the brightness up. I checked the brightness was ok on the spreadsheet, came out of settings, and suddenly everything went black. I did all the obvious things, then googled other possible fixes, including specific to my laptop model, but nothing worked. On starting the laptop, the Lenovo logo came up, the little white circle turned round, the red light for face recognition flashed, then zilch.  But clearly it wasn't a problem with the physical screen, as it displayed the logo. It wouldn't start in safe mode either. I thought I might either have accidentally changed some setting, or else it might be connected with a recent update  I couldn't try some of the tests suggested, eg removing RAM, because anything involving physically unscrewing my laptop would invalidate the guarantee  I am a member of Which Tech, so I contacted them. Obviously their hands were rather tied as they couldn't connect remotely to the laptop as there was no display. They said I couldn't have clicked on some other setting by mistake, as the display section only related to the display. They said they thought it was probably an issue with either the operating system or the mother board, or a component of them. They said it should be possible to identify the fault without losing my data. Given the involvement of John Lewis, I said I thought this was unlikely, as they had once told me to do an unnecessary factory reset on my old laptop and told me this wouldn't lose my data, which I had queried at the time,  and had to pay me compensation. So at this point I phoned John Lewis, to be told a repair would take "up to 28 working days" and no they wouldn't supply a replacement laptop during that time. I decided to take the laptop to John Lewis rather than have it collected, so their tech people could look at it first. So then the JL tech person said I must have clicked on  Bitlocker by mistake and locked myself out out of the laptop. I thought this was highly unlikely. Anyway, pursuing this line of thought did not help, and she was still unable to get into it by putting in the Bitlocker code. So then we had the data saving conversation. She said the company the laptop would go to was approved by Lenovo. She said they would do a factory reset first regardless. I said could they not try to identify the fault first. She said no. I said could I not request that they did. She said no. She said I could pay £150 for data retrieval, which could be done first. She said it would require removing the hard drive. She said if anybody else did this it would invalidate the guarantee. So. I have brought the laptop home to think things over. But I'm not willing to pay £150,  because the important files I can reconstruct by other means, and I have hard copies of most of them, it's just a time consuming pain. I have contacted Carbonite to see if they have any way of backing up the non backed up data even though I can't get into the laptop. If you have managed to reach the end of this post, congratulations 🤣 and do you have any bright ideas? I have typed all this on my mobile. It has taken a very very long time 🤣
    • I thought I saw some TW workmen there when it first happened last weekend but maybe it's too big for them to fix and they can't switch the mains off there without shutting all the businesses down.
    • You copy the address in the URL and then paste here  
    • Off the top of my head, there are notice boards in Sainsbury's and the library where small businesses can advertise, not to overlook the internet and forums such as this which these days is where very many go to first for small business information. I find it strange that you are mounting this crusade to allow small businesses the right to advertise in the Community noticeboards when there are so many alternatives these days. As I said before, the Community noticeboards are too small to accommodate commercial notices and would probably overwhelm and obscure the NFP notices. For info, during the week there is just as broad a mix passing by the NXR boards as the one by the station
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...