Cyclists taking over paths!!

[Rockets]

36 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

Because sometimes you have to pragmatic. Whomever took that photo could see what they were doing and why they were having to do it that way.

36 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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

Is the van doing the work at that house not a low-level misdemeanour - you can’t have it both ways?  Therein lies the problem…you want every driver to comply with the rules of the road but not cyclists. That’s hypocrisy but there’s a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on your side of the argument it seems to come with the territory.

 

36 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I think it’s clear what the point is and clear who is being ideologically blinkered.

I think the challenge you have is that anyone who dares to challenge your view or perspective you have to attack and try to demonise them, especially when you get things wrong - instead of saying you got things wrong you double-down. It’s sad but so utterly predictable but this behaviour is why so many people are really challenged by the approach of the pro- side of the lobby - a lot of it is downright nasty and that is why it is rabid - because a lot of people have lost all sense of perspective because they are so far in their ideological sink-hole.

And I say this as a cyclist and driver who wants to see zero accidents on the road.

 

 

 

Edited November 8 by Rockets

[first mate]

 

This evening, on one of the smaller residential streets off Lordship Lane, a cyclist trundled towards me on the narrow footpath and smiled at me as I stepped back onto the kerb to let him continue past - I did not really have much choice. The road was completely empty. I am reminded of Penguin's earlier post that many cyclists now seem to think they are simply pedestrians on two wheels. 

 

•  Quote

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets I have been clear that I don’t approve of people breaking the rules, whether travelling by bicycle or motor vehicle. But why do you repeatedly criticise one person for highlighting bad road behaviour yet applaud another who is doing the same thing (except highlighting less serious infractions as well as using offensive insults). I asked you why one is different from the other in your mind. There is someone being incredibly hypocritical, ideological and blinkered. It is not me

Edited Saturday at 16:32 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Because Earl, this is a thread about careless cycling and cycling on pavements in particular.

What about incidences like the one I describe a couple of posts above? What say you about choosing to cycle on a narrow pavement, no intention to dismount, even though you see two pedestrians in front of you on the same path? Instead, merrily making them step aside to let you through...oh and this next to a residential street that is completely devoid of any traffic?

This is the thin end of the wedge. Surely even you can see that? What do we do about it? Or is point scoring with another poster your priority?

[malumbu]

There are several of you who take every opportunity to criticise cyclists, Southwark, active travel campaigners, road safety campaigners across numerous threads.

Edited Saturday at 20:22 by malumbu

[first mate]

We are cyclists who are criticising certain cycling behaviours which are on the rise and need to be addressed. Why do you have such a problem doing the same? What do you think about the cycling behaviour I described above? Okay, not okay? Or will you just do your usual deflection routine " yeah but what about the cars and why are you all so angry"...? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

8 hours ago, first mate said:

Because Earl, this is a thread about careless cycling and cycling on pavements in particular.

What about incidences like the one I describe a couple of posts above? What say you about choosing to cycle on a narrow pavement, no intention to dismount, even though you see two pedestrians in front of you on the same path?

It’s bad behaviour. It’s a bit entitled. I think you’re right to criticise it.

Rockets however, has expended a lot of energy minimising actual car crashes, some of them serious, and made over 40 posts criticising Dulwich roads for highlighting them whilst promoting another poster who focusses exclusively on the type of lower level, anti-social incidents you describe (and calls people retards). Why? Because one concerns actual crashes involving motor vehicles and the other potentially dangerous or nuisance behaviour involving people travelling by pedal cycle.

If you rant about rabid ideology blinding people, leading them to lose all perspective and objectivity, and then minimise any incident involving cars actually driving into things and in to people, whilst amplifying any reported misdemeanour by someone travelling on a push bike where no injury has occurred, it feels like there a massive blind spot, and not a little lack of self awareness.

If one’s knee jerk reaction to any discussion of road safety is ‘cars good, bikes bad’ you’re either incredibly tribal and blinkered, or just not very thoughtful/ serious. Or you’re a troll.

Edited Sunday at 00:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I have always been clear that I think dangerous/ careless driving is abhorrent and would support higher penalties as well as more compulsory courses. I do not seek to minimise the issues caused by irresponsible driving behaviour. 

I was also struck by how many of the examples of problematic vehicle use cited earlier by another poster involved those used for delivery or work. That is part of the problem. We are dependent on vehicle use in complex ways and simply trying to punish or shame users into 'compliance'  is not the solution. The behaviour of organisations like Dulwich Roads seems to draw a lot on the stick approach and comes over as tribal, simplistic and a great way for spleen venting- little more.

But, all that said, what I also find objectionable is the largely dismissive approach to careless cycling behaviour by those who seek to rid our area of cars. I actually find it bizarre. The same sort of behaviour that drives careless driving is likely to be behind careless cycling. Why wait for the second to increase and get worse? From where I am sitting that is exactly what some of you seem to be doing. 

[Penguin68]

If you drive any petrol or diesel (or electric 4 wheel) powered vehicle on your own, other than very low powered two wheelers you will need to have demonstrated hazard awareness and knowledge of road signs and the highway code together with sufficient skill in managing your vehicle. Even powered two wheelers must be licensed to drive. Cyclists (and users of electric assisted two wheelers) need have no training and are not obliged to pass any tests of any sort ever. It is not surprising that drivers are more likely to be 'better mannered' on the roads. Although some of course aren't. Careless and bad driving is not excusable, but why should careless and bad cycling get a free pass? Cyclists are of course far more vulnerable when road incidents happen, but you might imagine that would be imperative on making cyclists better skilled in road safety behaviour. Which isn't my experience. 

[malumbu]

Drivers need to demonstrate this on the day they pass their test.  Then much of that goes out of the window.  Do a spot test on drivers on the road today and 95 percent will fail.  There is no compulsion for refresher or advanced training of drivers.  I've posted this many times but a number of you continue to be apologists for poor drivers/driving.  

Edited Sunday at 10:31 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

27 minutes ago, malumbu said:

 

 

27 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Do a spot test on drivers on the road today and 95 percent will fail.

Source? 

[malumbu]

Anecdotal from driving instructors I worked with on driving standards and smarter driving.  A select cadre of advanced driving instructors together with friends who are, or were, instructors.

Pick any junction, and see how many indicate properly in advance, one in ten I expect

How many check their mirror before indicating?  I expect less than half

How many people check inside before turning, well under half

How many people routinely exceed speed limits when their are no traffic cameras?  The majority

How many people cut corners when turning - most

One hand on the steering wheel, etc etc

Not backing off the accelerator when shops, crossings, schools, cyclists,  Judging by Honor Oak Road and the school there, majority don't.

Driving smoothly in traffic calmed streets, most don't.

You may get away with one of those on your actual test, but any more expect it will be a failure.  And that is for generally inexperienced drivers where there will be some leniency from examiners.

You may well get away with this low level poor driving skills for all of your driving life without a serious collision, but it only takes one turn left across a cyclist or right when a motorcyclist is overtaking......

If you've got an idle moment then stand by a junction, or a school with relatively free flowing traffic and do your own research.

Of course you go to some other countries in Europe, and beyond, and there is far worse.  Cross over the border from France into Germany, or Austria into Germany, and you will see fairly quickly much more aggressive driving styles.

I expect most of this is just poor driving skills rather than aggressive driving, The one in twenty that should give cyclists more room is probably simply unaware rather than seething due to their views on cyclists, clarification in the Highway Code etc

But if you tested most drivers on the Highway Code, unless newly qualified, yes, you'd guessed it, they'd fail.

[Spartacus]

@malumbu you're always quick to turn on drivers and never seem to acknowledge cyclists are also liable to break the rules and cycle badly. 

Whilst the argument that a car or hgv will cause more damage is valid, surly even you must agree that we should all use the roads safely and sensibly? 

Demonising motorists without also condemning poor cycling is a very one sided argument and one that is getting weary. 

Cyclists aren't angels until they are!!

[Penguin68]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

Pick any junction, and see how many indicate properly in advance, one in ten I expect

Most, actually, save perhaps late at night when there's no traffic, and they should, of course, even then. If as many as one in 20 cyclists signalled intent I'd be surprised. 

[Rockets]

Malumbu, are you advocating some type of cycling test and licence for cyclists as well then? 

You cite left turns across cyclists but there are a lot of cyclists who ignore the Highway Code and proceed to the left of a vehicle that is indicating. Surely if there is no training for cyclists then how are they supposed to know what's safe cycling - many seem to think they are able to cycle to the left of an indicating vehicle.

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Most, actually, save perhaps late at night when there's no traffic, and they should, of course, even then. If as many as one in 20 cyclists signalled intent I'd be surprised. 

Please please go and re read the Highway Code if you're a driver. There are distinct differences in what it says cyclists/ horse riders should do from what vehicle drivers must do. 

Edited Sunday at 18:21 by snowy

[malumbu]

Not demonising drivers.  Pointing out the bad habits that most have, that will not necessarily lead to points on the license but could lead to someone being killed or seriously injured.

I've said on numerous occasions that information and training is the key to good cycling standards.  Most of the primary schools offer this through the government's Bikeability programme. Sadly due to funding some adult training has been cut.

Edited Sunday at 20:33 by malumbu

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Please please go and re read the Highway Code if you're a driver. There are distinct differences in what it says cyclists/ horse riders should do from what vehicle drivers must do. 

Probably good cyclists go and read it to…not sure many realise this, certainly very few of us obey it - I do and often have been overtaken by other cyclists ignoring it. Some cyclists seem to think they have right of way in every instance.

 

Rule 74

Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

 

and here are a few others a large number of cyclists probably need to read up on and obey.

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

Rule 69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals

Rule 71

At traffic light junctions and at cycle-only crossings with traffic lights, you MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.

Rule 81

Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

 

[malumbu]

Guilty as charged.  I'm always riding over equestrian crossings!  Glad they didn't ask me that in my driving test.  I was asked about bus lanes, and had never driven on one.  We also didn't have level crossings where I came from.  Like here 

Anyway nobody appears to have commented on my well presented points on poor driving standards.

Do you agree or disagree?

 

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Probably good cyclists go and read it to…not sure many realise this, certainly very few of us obey it - I do and often have been overtaken by other cyclists ignoring it. Some cyclists seem to think they have right of way in every instance.

 

Rule 74

Turning. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. If you intend to turn left, check first for other cyclists or motorcyclists before signalling. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

 

and here are a few others a large number of cyclists probably need to read up on and obey.

 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

 

Rule 69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals

 

Rule 71

At traffic light junctions and at cycle-only crossings with traffic lights, you MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.

Rule 81

Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

 

That's lovely dear, but nothing to do with the conversation we're having - signaling- which is a should not a must. And you understand the legal difference don't you. 

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Most, actually, save perhaps late at night when there's no traffic, and they should, of course, even then. If as many as one in 20 cyclists signalled intent I'd be surprised. 

Drivers - oh no they don't, Most signal late when turning left at junctions, if at all.  Recommend you actually check for yourself.  No point in signalling as you are actually turning.  Too late.

It's good when cyclists give indications of what they are doing, through good road position, checking behind and where possible signalling.  But your post suggests you have a massive bias against cyclists whilst believing drivers do little or nothing wrong.

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

Drivers - oh no they don't, Most signal late when turning left at junctions, if at all. 

What a load of nonsense...and i say this as both a cyclist and driver. This is not even close to being true.

7 hours ago, malumbu said:

But your post suggests you have a massive bias against cyclists whilst believing drivers do little or nothing wrong.

But this is a thread about bad cycling so maybe take your comments on bad driving and set yo a new thread instead of trying to throw in a "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" to distract from this thread....

[first mate]

And still, nothing from Malumbu and others about the cyclist I encountered a few evenings ago on a narrow residential street path. He made me step back onto the kerb to let him through. The road was empty. The silence of most speaks volumes, you all clearly think this is fine.

Of all the pro LTN folk on here, only Earl has said this kind of behaviour is wrong. 

On a thread about cycling on pavements, to choose to ignore a relevant comment and instead meander off into some monologue about advanced motoring skills is deflection of the most blinkered kind.

[Kathleen Olander]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

And still, nothing from Malumbu and others about the cyclist I encountered a few evenings ago on a narrow residential street path. He made me step back onto the kerb to let him through. The road was empty. The silence of most speaks volumes, you all clearly think this is fine.

Of all the pro LTN folk on here, only Earl has said this kind of behaviour is wrong. 

On a thread about cycling on pavements, to choose to ignore a relevant comment and instead meander off into some monologue about advanced motoring skills is deflection of the most blinkered kind.

I don't think it's fine for any cyclists to be on pavements, I thought it was illegal.  I never move out of their way, I tell them to get off the pavement.  Likewise I tell them to dismount on Zebra crossings.

I told Game of Thrones man to get off pavement, which he continually cycles on with his dog! 

 

[malumbu]

1.  I was responding to a post that inferred that drivers were not a problem due to licensing, having to pass a test etc.  I disagree.  I made a number of points why.  You simply dismiss these points.

2. Where have I condoned cycling on the pavement?  Please go through the hundred of posts on this subject and find one from me saying that riding on the pavement is fine.

3.  I tried to get some proper debate about how to address this issue.  But there was failure to engage, just the usual stuff on LTNs and that the police and local authorities should patrol the pavements.  To repeat myself education, information and training is important.

4.  The authorities will not take action against children cycling on the pavement.  What age is appropriate to ride on the road?  I'd say year 5 with appropriate training and the presence or approval of a responsible adult.

5.  I will occasionally try to discourage pavement cycling either politely or with older children and adults bluntly.  Depends on my mood