Cyclists taking over paths!!

[first mate]

I don't want to take this off thread so briefly, in a recent S'wark Council Scrutiny session, a young guy presented on barriers to cycling and expressed perspectives/views on cycling that he felt were held in some communities that were a significant barrier to adopting cycling as a means of transport.

These are not my views, but what have been raised by Southwark. They are keen to see a more ethnically/culturally diverse cycling demographic in the borough and are trying to find ways to make this happen.

Currently, I am more concerned about the amount of careless cycling behaviour I am seeing at Dulwich Square.

 

[alice]

Unless this guy has done a bit of a survey in local places like schools/ workplaces etc talking about what ‘he felt’ is irrelevant. 

[Spartacus]

Just had this pop up 

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2024-11-06/study-reveals-scale-of-cyclists-and-e-scooter-riders-ignoring-law-in-london

Looks at data from 80 junctions in London to see how cyclists behaved, but don't worry as it also found how drivers behaved too 

Makes an intersting point about the "urban myth" that cyclists jump red lights (apparently, according to this data they do) 

[malumbu]

For proper balance please also post on the separate thread I started yonks ago about drivers behaving badly.

[Rockets]

Oh my word....the problem is clearly a lot worse than many who post on here steadfastly refuse to acknowledge...it's not like we haven't been trying to tell them.

Stand at any junction in central London, wait for the greenlight to allow you cross and I guarantee you will see a host of cyclists jumping the red lights.

Does anyone think this isn't a problem that needs addressing?

 

[malumbu]

I think you will find it's about 70/30 on this forum that considers poor driving is a greater priority.  

[Spartacus]

At least Mal you are finally recognising that cyclists break the law, just like other road users. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I think you will find it's about 70/30 on this forum that considers poor driving is a greater priority.  

But you have to admit that report is shocking isn't it? Do you agree there might be a problem - I know you have suggested this problem was imagined by some of us in the past.

[Penguin68]

Surely one issue here is that, in general, figures suggest that incidents involving powered vehicles and their drivers have been reducing over time, as has the relative seriousness and frequency of injuries (including fatal injuries) whilst reports of poor cycling behaviour have been increasing, at least anecdotally. At a time when drivers are apparently (albeit too slowly) getting better it seems very sad that cyclists are getting worse - one might hope that all road users would be improving in their behaviours.

I know as a driver (it is a long time since I cycled) that it is predictable and 'signalled' behaviour which leads to safer roads - and that cyclists are frequently not predictable or signalling. I expect vehicles to stop at red lights, to signal turns, and mainly they do. That is simply not true of the majority of cyclists I see on the roads around Dulwich (with some sterling and admirable exceptions). Driving (or indeed walking) safely when you can't tell what fellow travellers are doing is much more difficult (as is driving on poorly lit local roads at night when other users do not have lights or reflective clothing). Cyclists are particularly vulnerable (compared with drivers) - I simply can't understand why so many are so reckless about caring for their own, and others' safety. And why this behaviour seems to be becoming worse.

[KalamityKel]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

I think you will find it's about 70/30 on this forum that considers poor driving is a greater priority.  

What statistic is this assumption based on? 

[Rockets]

Barby's latest installment! Townley Road seems to be a good one!

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you absolutely hate 'Dulwich roads', for highlighting examples of road behaviour that have caused major damage and destruction. But you love to share someone else posting about much lower level examples of nuisance or inconsiderate road behaviour best described as potentially dangerous, (mainly to the individuals themselves, referred to by the videographer as 'retards'). What is the difference I wonder?

Edited Thursday at 15:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Remind us, where did Rockets say they "absolutely hate" Dulwich Roads? Why the casual misrepresentation?

We have legislation and penalties in place to address careless driving; there is virtually nothing to address that of careless cycling. The "solution" seems to be to wipe out all cars (totally unrealistic) and just ignore the growing cycling issue.

 

[Rockets]

Earl loves putting words into people's mouths....

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not a direct quote, but for someone who has made over 40 posts criticising them, and talks about 'rabid' active travel ideologues, it's fairly clear that there is no love lost. So back to my question. Why do you repeatedly criticise and insult someone for highlighting examples of road behaviour that have caused major damage and destruction, but gleefully share share someone elses posts about much lower level examples of nuisance or inconsiderate road behaviour best described as potentially dangerous, (mainly to the individuals themselves, referred to by the videographer as 'retards'). What is the difference I wonder?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, first mate said:

We have legislation and penalties in place to address careless driving; there is virtually nothing to address that of careless cycling

This is not true. People have been prosecuted and imprisoned in the exceptionally rare cases where they have caused serious harm to others whilst on a bicycle. The police also regularly hand out penalty notices for rule breaking. It is true that there are fewer regulations applied to use of bicycles, but that is because they pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car or HGV.

Edited Friday at 11:56 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I am aware of a spate of penalty notices being handed out to cyclists in the City of London, but not locally? If this is happening then that is a good thing, however from what I have seen locally it is not having the desired deterrent effect.

[Spartacus]

Discussion point:

Cyclists are not often prosecuted and have limited regulations applied to them because "they pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car or HGV." 

Assuming that's true, the discussion point is "does seeing cyclist getting more 'lienient' treatment does this encourage other road users to ignore the rules?" 

it hinges on the broken window theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory) that seeing anti social behaviour encourages it. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Cyclists are not often prosecuted and have limited regulations applied to them because "they pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car or HGV." 

Assuming that's true

Assuming that's true? Surely not even Rockets is going to claim that a bicycle poses a greater threat to others than an HGV.

[Spartacus]

19 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Assuming that's true? Surely not even Rockets is going to claim that a bicycle poses a greater threat to others than an HGV.

The assumption was "Cyclists are not often prosecuted and have limited regulations applied to them because"  not the other part or are you deliberately twisting and putting words in others mouths again Earl ? 🤔 

Edited Friday at 14:34 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying?

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Cyclists are not often prosecuted and have limited regulations applied to them because "they pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car or HGV." 

Assuming that's true...

I thought the 'assuming that's true', was suggesting that as a premise it may not be true that cyclists pose a significantly lower threat to others than say a car of HGV. That is how it reads to me, but happy to be corrected.

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

"does seeing cyclist getting more 'lienient' treatment does this encourage other road users to ignore the rules?" 

On the second bit - I think it's unlikely, because cars are (rightly) regulated. That's not to say that it doesn't cause significant resentment, as amply demonstrated by the 'war on motorists' narrative and the numerous threads ranting about 'dangerous' cyclists.

For the record (and as stated before) I 100% disprove of people breaking road rules, whether on a bicycle or in a motor vehicle. I don't actually see things in terms of 'cars versus bicycle', but in terms of road safety, which is why I get a bit frustrated with the tribalism and false equivalence often used by those who are really only interested in 'point scoring' for their 'side', rather than objective reality. I'm sure you know who I'm talking about.

[Edited to add]

You could replace the word 'more lenient' with 'proportional' imo. I don't imagine anyone would suggest that bicycles, cars and HGVs should all be regulated in the same way.

Edited Friday at 16:21 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

Today I have seen in the backstreets around Sydenham several cars cut corners when turning right, one van completely on the wrong side of the road, several speeding, one well exceeding 40mph, one bizarre car stopping and then with no indication reversing towards a cyclist  by the curb before doing a three point turn, on pick up truck on their phone, one van driver peeling a banana (well at least it was healthy) and delivery vans parked by a junction on the pavement blocking the line of site for road users approaching the junction or turning into this.  All of these could led to serious collision.

As it was not commuting time, and not a cycle route, about four leisure cyclists doing nothing particularly exciting and one delivery moped not crashing into loan women drivers, just doing their job.

This fixation with cyclists is ridiculous.

[Spartacus]

Thanks @Earl Aelfheah a goodd start to a discussion and like you 109% agree that people shouldn't break road rules. 

Interesting point about resentment as well and that may well play into the point I was raising. 

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So back to my question. Why do you repeatedly criticise and insult someone for highlighting examples of road behaviour that have caused major damage and destruction, but gleefully share share someone elses posts about much lower level examples of nuisance or inconsiderate road behaviour best described as potentially dangerous, (mainly to the individuals themselves, referred to by the videographer as 'retards'). What is the difference I wonder?

 

I do not hate anyone and to suggest otherwise is a typical low-blow attack we have come to expect from some. What i do hate however is when Dulwich Roads posts things to further their ideological campaign that are either clearly untrue or they have done nothing to determine what actually happened. It seems every time they see anything that they think was caused by "dangerous drivers" they start salivating and post it as proof.

The ones I posted yesterday are a classic example - the yellow arrow sign clearly wasn't hit by a vehicle.

And there is this one...now that's vehicle is not being driven anywhere, there is no-one in the drivers seat. Notice also the tubing on the back of the "HGV". Now is that driving down the pavement or maybe it's pouring or removing something into or from the building works going on at the back of the house on that corner....go take a look for yourself...the house, with a load of building works going on at the back of it is at the junction of Dekker Road. 

 

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Surely not even Rockets is going to claim that a bicycle poses a greater threat to others than an HGV.

As I have said a thousand times before I don't want to be hit by either a HGV or a bicycle (but if you're asking which is would prefer to be hit by then I will, obviously, take my chances with the bike). I am someone who would like to see zero road injuries caused by anything. Some seem to want zero road injuries caused by everything except bikes - which seems to be the go to position for many in the pro-cycle lobby the "well let's turn a blind eye to bikes because cars kill more people".

Edited Friday at 17:38 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

That HGV has illegally mounted and driven across the pavement. Why is criticising that considered unreasonable.

45 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It seems every time they see anything that they think was caused by "dangerous drivers" they start salivating

But you repost someone who constantly seeks out low level misdemeanours by people on push bikes and calls them ‘retards’, and that’s fine?

You talk about people being ‘rabid’, make 40+ posts attacking Dulwich Roads and say you hate it when 

45 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Dulwich Roads posts things to further their ideological campaign

Perhaps you don’t hate them personally, maybe just hate what they post and feel relaxed about people being described as rabid and as retards. Either way, I don’t think anyone is fooled by your pretence at being hurt by someone saying you hate them rather than ‘hate their posts’. I think it’s clear what the point is and clear who is being ideologically blinkered.

Edited Friday at 18:22 by Earl Aelfheah