Cyclists taking over paths!!

[first mate]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

It would be good if you engaged in the debate.  In this occasion solutions. The numerous personal snipes over the last two years or so are unhelpful. I provided factual context, in that cyclists will not be the top of the list for authorities as public enemy number 1.  And as others have reported most cyclists are also pedestrians, public transport users, and pedestrians.  The us vs then helps nobody.

This point about personal snipes is rich coming from you (at one point you were suggesting some of us had mental health problems and needed counselling).

I opened the debate by asking that we keep it local (ie not try to score points by citing national statistics). It would be great if you engaged Mal and admitted there are issues with careless cycling and how this can be addressed before it gets out of hand. Why is that seemingly so incredibly difficult for you to do?

Every time the issue of careless cycling is raised one of you retorts with a " but cars are worse". How is that engaging in the debate? Far from engaging you and others repeatedly try to close it down.

Out cycling on Greendale the other day, it was quite crowded with cyclists, there were also dogs and children milling around. Most cyclists were going slowish and were mindful of others, but one guy flew by, pedalling as fast as he could and nearly hit a dog. On Peckham Rye yesterday, two kids on a souped up e-bike went at top speed (looked like 35mph +) across the length of the common and then the footpath. I would say every time I am out on my bike I see careless cycling- I see careless driving also but there are penalties in place for that (not perfect) for careless cycling there is nothing.

Edited September 4 by first mate

[Pugwash]

With so many young children now riding bikes on the pavement, it is imperative that their parents/carers teach them to be aware of pedestrians as well. Spotted today in LL - mother ahead with phone in hand - youngsters on bikes several yards behind and people trying to move aside. On child was about 3 years old and riding bike without pedals. Having been out with our 10 year old grandchild over weekend with her new bike - we were more aware of the numbers of children riding about in area, some having little regard to other pavement users.

[malumbu]

Totally misquoting me.  I've offered solutions.  They are all of the softer good citizenship variety.  The point on other road users concerns enforcement.  I very much doubt whether there will be any major national or local campaigns against cyclists when others cause more harm.

As for cycling on the pavements people do that for a variety of reasons so not a single answer.  Parents are progressively more risk averse, even as the number of cycle routes and traffic calmed roads increase.  So how do you change this?

Cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and gives ammunition to those opposed to active and sustainable travel, a shame.

But for me the benefits of cycling far outweigh this downside.

I struggle to understand why a number of you are so angry about cyclists.

Edited September 4 by malumbu

[first mate]

 I referred to something that you posted a while back, please don't deny you said those things. Others here will remember. Again, you want discussion but as soon as anyone disagrees with your view you start up with your 'anger' angle- not so dissimilar from the stuff you were doing earlier.

It is quite simple, as cycling increases the risk for harm also increases, unless you want to try to argue there is no such thing as careless cycling? After all, as others have observed, many of us cyclists are also motorists or vice versa, those inclined to 'take the gap' in a car are likely to take similar risks when cycling, ditto for those who speed.

Cycling on pavements when it is seemingly a bit random and there is no clear idea of when it is okay and when it is not, is beginning to become problematic in some areas. It may be difficult to 'police' but we need to find a way before it really gets out of hand. I believe Brent are having issues with Lime bikes and may get rid of them.

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

I very much doubt whether there will be any major national or local campaigns against cyclists when others cause more harm.

Except the ones like the police conducted at Bank junction due to the continual problems posed by bad cycling.....how many cyclists got PCNs.....?

 

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

Cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and gives ammunition to those opposed to active and sustainable travel, a shame.

No cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and increases risk for pedestrians. Any ammunition given to those who oppose cycling on pavements is down to...well, cycling on pavements....which is not allowed and increases risk for pedestrians....

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

I struggle to understand why a number of you are so angry about cyclists

It's not cyclists it's bad cyclists we are angry at. Just as we are angry at bad drivers. But the difference is we don't try to defend bad driving and offer "yeah, but" excuses....

[Jenijenjen]

18 hours ago, Pugwash said:

With so many young children now riding bikes on the pavement, it is imperative that their parents/carers teach them to be aware of pedestrians as well. Spotted today in LL - mother ahead with phone in hand - youngsters on bikes several yards behind and people trying to move aside. On child was about 3 years old and riding bike without pedals. Having been out with our 10 year old grandchild over weekend with her new bike - we were more aware of the numbers of children riding about in area, some having little regard to other pavement users.

 

This.  Young children cycling on pavements cannot be expected to be aware and mindful of pedestrians so their parents should be vigilant on their behalf.

(though perhaps not in the way that, after negotiating two under fives on their bikes on the pavement, I heard the mother say "Guys, you must be careful of the old people." ! 🤪 )

[Earl Aelfheah]

Perhaps we could just have a single thread called 'cars versus bikes' for those who can't expand their thinking beyond a simple binary opposition and just want to 'score points' for their 'side'.

Then the rest of the section could actually be used for nuanced / sensible conversations about transport matters?

[Penguin68]

42 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Perhaps we could just have a single thread called 'cars versus bikes' for those who can't expand their thinking beyond a simple binary opposition and just want to 'score points' for their 'side'.

But it's not cars versus bikes, is it? - it's specific drivers versus specific cyclists - it's about the people not the vehicles. And about policies which favour one group of people over another, and has views that, for instance, one individual who jumps the lights or drives on pavements should be entitled to, and another should be prosecuted (and I don't mean the cyclist!)

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

But it's not cars versus bikes, is it? - it's specific drivers versus specific cyclists - it's about the people not the vehicles.

I agree. That's my point.

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

And about policies which favour one group of people over another, and has views that, for instance, one individual who jumps the lights or drives on pavements should be entitled to, and another should be prosecuted (and I don't mean the cyclist!)

Literally no one is arguing that individuals who jump lights or drive on pavements should be entitled to. 

When people are caught doing this on a bicycle, it usually results in a penalty notice. When they do it in a car it often results in the same. It may occasionally result in a prosecution where it's a particularly egregious example, but is more likely to happen where someone is travelling in a motor vehicle. There is good reason for that. Driving a car down a pavement, or through lights is objectively more dangerous by several orders of magnitude.

This is not 'favouring one group of people over another'. It's not about any group identity, but an individuals behaviour and potential impacts. Again, it shouldn't need stating, but people are not cyclists, pedestrians, bus users, or drivers; They are all of them at different times. 

Edited September 6 by Earl Aelfheah

[Pugwash]

This.  Young children cycling on pavements cannot be expected to be aware and mindful of pedestrians so their parents should be vigilant on their behalf.

 

I agree that children need to use pavements for safety reasons and it is up to the parents to ensure that the children are made aware of other folk around them. Children need to cycle in front of the adults so that adult can spot any impending 'danger' .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rockets]

And please, please, please, please if your little cherubs do cycle on the pavement don't teach them to vigorously ring their bell to alert people to "get out of my way" as they cycle up behind them. Teach them that the person in front of them has the right of way and it's their job to navigate around them and not the responsibility of the pedestrian to move out of their way! And if the pedestrian does move out of their way a thank you goes a long way to ensure cyclist and pedestrian entente cordiale!

[malumbu]

If they have had their cycle training they will know to use the bell sparingly.  Ideally come year 5 most of them will be trained and confident to cycle on the road.  Just need to train the parents!  I'm being serious 😀

[alice]

Lovely mother to bell ringing, speeding child, both on bikes,  both on the pavement  ‘ Say excuse me’.

😂😂😂

[Nigello]

Did she have a shiny gold or silver helmet for self and child? They often do…

[malumbu]

Good morning, good afternoon, good day, hello and occasional thank you best way of communicating.

[first mate]

Link to an article that provides a useful summary on reservations that some of us have
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/dave-hill-leadership-is-required-to-combat-londons-selfish-cycling-culture/

[malumbu]

I didn't know that Dave Hill of  Slade was also into local politics. His band mate Noddy champions cycling:

 

 

[first mate]

Thanks for acting true to form Mal and strengthening the points that Dave Hill makes, below.

"It doesn’t help that cycling activists get touchy when this is pointed out. I recently published on social media a photograph of Lime bikes clustered by the entrance to my local Overground station at morning peak time, impeding people going in and out by foot and passers-by alike. It was an image which, I said, captured why so many people find London’s cycling culture alienating.

The response was as large, indignant and predictable as usual – a days-long chorus of deflection, special pleading and denial: the Lime bike blockage was not, apparently, the fault of those who did the blocking but a forgivable consequence of failures by “corporate” Lime; there was the customary rush to change the subject to the sins of cars; the routine rule-breaking was dismissed as scarce or as something cyclists are “forced” to do by the cruel injustices they face; it was even contended that criticising cyclists is a form of “othering“, as if it were akin to racism. The latter case is made on behalf of a demographic dominated by affluent white males. Which is the greater, the narcissism or the solipsism?"

 

[Spartacus]

 

I say nothing 🤣

[raptortruckman69]

Haha great video! I loathe cyclists too! Glad someone is finally taking a stand against them after all the nonsense with the LCC trying force it's will onto us and exclude cars from London.

[first mate]

Just to be clear, a number of us with reservations about local LTNs and who feel there are issues with Lime bikes and the way the council has handled change to increase cycling etc, are not anti cyclist. On the contrary we are also cyclists.

[raptortruckman69]

Oh that's a good idea! Keep a few "cyclists" 😉 on side for having the LTN ripped up, while the rest of us discredit cyclists as the lycra louts that they are and the LCC cabal to boot.

I am assuming that by reservation you do want it removed entirely because despite the mounds of so-called evidence (all manufactured by activist academics and radical councilors), it does in fact increase pollution and traffic. You are not actually broadly in favor with a few tweaks are you?

Edited September 26 by raptortruckman69
clarity

[malumbu]

With a number of anti-cyclist threads, or ones that evolve into anti-cyclists, it's difficult to know where to post. 

Anyway as regards to cyclists on pavements, firstly the title of this thread is sensational/shows a hardly hidden agenda.  "cycling on pavements' would have been adequate.  Cyclists are not taking over the pavements.

As for whether this is a nuisance and often not justified (my position) to "cyclists of all sorts, including those riding fully electric bikes which aren't actually pedal cycles, are mowing down thousands" depends on your perspective.

Starting point would be to look at who these cyclists are and how best to dissuade them.  Those with kids - by 10 or 11 with training and adult supervision families can cycle on our roads without too much risk.  But I don't know how you get over the increasing risk aversion of the modern parent.  The more that cycle on the road, the more normal this becomes and the better for cycling.

Those that should generally know better.  Dunno why they do this beyond not thinking about it.  That's probably an information and good citizen thing.

Those that are rebelling from teenager to those in their 20s.  That's an anti social behaviour thing and goes beyond cycling on pavements and includes other behaviour - vandalism, graffiti, litter and wearing a loud shirt in a built up area that are waving two fingers to the world. Some is simply growing up, but this seems a societal issue and an issue for the government of the day, schools, parents, youth workers etc etc.  But do we want a world like Singapore? certainly garage, punk, ska, rap, and grime would never have happened.

Anyway I am sure I've said all this before.  Rational debate rather than knee jerk please.

I found this interesting guidance on cycling and the law:

https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/featured/cycling-and-the-law

Covers many of the anti-cyclist sentiment on this forum

Picking up on one issue - why aren't you using the bally cycle lane (have had that abuse from time to time)

8. You’re not obliged to use that roadside cycle lane or cycle track

Some drivers might not like it but there’s no requirement for cyclists to use cycle lanes (on roads) or cycle tracks (separate from the carriageway). “While such facilities are provided for reasons of safety, cyclists may exercise their judgement and are not obliged to use them”, says Rule 61. It’s just as well, because some UK bike paths aren’t fit for purpose.

[first mate]

Do agree that last point. What looks like a safe bit of road from the car driver perspective can be seriously risky for the cyclist and I have nearly come a cropper a few times on uneven road, cycling in too close to the kerb. Hidden potholes at night are another nightmare and just as pavement must be improved for pedestrians - with cyclists always giving way to pedestrians- road surfaces must also be made safer.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Great post Malumbu. Agree with your points.

There are people who are anti-social and we need to address anti-social behaviour, which includes times when it takes place by someone travelling on a bicycle. I don't subscribe to the 'cyclists are a scourge' narrative. For one thing it's patently nonsense (if we're talking the dangers posed to others in terms of ones choice of transport, cycling is about the most benign choice possible, after walking) and for another it's a classic case of group attribution error. You just wouldn't say there are people on foot who are mugging people in the street, therefore we need to crack down on pedestrians. It's so obviously ridiculous - and yet that's the logic that many of these really basic, 'bicycles bad' threads adopt.

Edited September 27 by Earl Aelfheah