Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  On 21/05/2024 at 11:38, FHfriend said:

@malumbu I agree that brenchley gardens is horrible to cycle along. I’ve contacted Southwark Council and TFL about it a couple of times. The Council said the road has been audited and it’s safe. 

Do you know of anyone else who might be able to help? I live in a Lewisham postcode so don’t think a Southwark councillor would be interested in contact from a non Southwark resident. 

Expand  

Cheers FH, I've  PMd you.  I started a thread on schemes such as Brenchley Gardens but got no interest, which is a shame.  If we discover more then we can update the forum.

Oh please, nice swerve, but if the suggestion is that the bulk of cyclists are forced to cycle on non-shared pavements because it is too unpleasant to cycle on the road then try another tack.
 

As a regular cyclist I see other cyclists take convenient shortcuts over non-shared pavements just because they can, not because it is dangerous or in any way necessary. 
 

By the way, if you guys find cycling Brenchley gardens unpleasant and dangerous then when you do use the pavement I sincerely hope you do the decent thing- dismount and walk.

Edited by first mate

Well I am a transport professional with experience on driving standards, pollution, sustainable transport, road design etc.  The redesign, moving from speed humps/cushions, to road narrowing has done nothing to reduce car speeds, generally in excess of 30mph until they brake before the camera, and at times twice this.  The narrowing funnels cyclists into the path of drivers, endangering riders.  There is not room to overtake a cyclist with a vehicle coming the other way at these narrowing points, and maybe 1 in 20 drivers have no issues with driving close to a cyclist.

Meanwhile an excellent article about the silly change in the law, from a local journo, probably one of his best.  Read it fully, and reflect, before giving your opinion

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/article/2024/may/21/uk-dangerous-cycling-offence-achieve-nothing

 

 

A nice pro cycling article from a pro cyclist by the way it is written. 

Ultimately every road user, including cyclists, should obey the rules so the new law won't actually have any effect, apart from the odd cyclist who breaks the rules. 

But back to reality, from experience, cyclists don't obey the rules, with the odd one stopping at lights or not riding on the footpath, and whilst the new law maybe unproportional to deaths, surly preventing even one pedestrian death is a good thing. Or do you disagree @malumbu ?

Why are the cycling lobby so inflamed by this new law?

It's there to prevent accidents and save a few more lives so if they are all cycling sensibly there should be no problem, but it's seen as an assault on freedom of cycling.

Obviously it isn't, no one is being told not to cycle, just that if they cause a death or serious injury then there are consequences. 

So why the angst dear cyclists ? 

  • Like 1

Ha ha...where to start dissecting another Peter Walker less than impartial puff piece...so many places to choose from..? The very best example of activist journalism.

A pro-cyling "transport professional" (out of interest is there anyone with a job in transport that doesn't come from the cycle lobby or is it a closed shop to anyone from beyond the two-wheel fraternity?) highlighting an article by the pro-cycling  lobbyist "political correspondent" from the Guardian....kind of highlights what the problem is...less than impartial people trying to convince everyone they are impartial - when all they care about is their blinkered cycle-centric world.

  On 21/05/2024 at 15:48, Spartacus said:

Why are the cycling lobby so inflamed by this new law?

Expand  

Yes it is ludicrous given most bang on about Vision Zero and trying to reduce road deaths to zero - surely this would help? Or don't people killed by.cyclists count?

  • Like 3

So some cyclists use the pavement.  Some will be because they are at age that you rebel.  Some do it as they don't really think about it.  Some do it because it may save time.  Some do it because they are rightly or wrongly afraid of the road.  There is an adult conversation to be had about good citizenship, sharing road space, lighter touch nudges such as what was used to encourage people to bag their dog poo, softer and harder enforcement.

On the latter the government and other authorities do not see this as high priority.  For me it is an occasional nuisance and it gets me thinking how best to discourage it, but illegal powered two wheelers are a much bigger issue.  And again government and the authorities are ducking this issue

The difficulty with this thread, from the outset with the title: "cyclists taking over the paths" - they clearly are not - it attracts polarised views, and I expect for some real and perceived issues how active travel has impacted on the freedoms to drive,

The silly new law is now gone, and Sunak's desperate attempt to win over motorists in his drivers' strategy seems to have failed.  Early rumblings are not that the manufactured culture war is going to feature greatly in the upcoming election, it seems to be focusing on immigration, security and the economy, but we shall see.

I tend to go through my MP on issues that concern me, but spoiler alert, not really been impressed with the person who is likely to be the MP for SE22 on July 5th in engaging with things that are important to me, let alone campaigning on local issues.  That reminds me I have a follow up email.

Edited by malumbu
got my GE dates mixed up!
  • Like 1
  On 24/05/2024 at 16:20, malumbu said:

The silly new law is now gone, and Sunak's desperate attempt to win over motorists in his drivers' strategy seems to have failed. 

Expand  

There is nothing silly about trying to prenent accidents and making people accountable for their actions, but obviously you don't think that way and serm to emphasise that cyclists should be above the law 

It's about time that you realised that they aren't and pedestrians need protecting from them as much as cyclists need protecting from cars.

Bring back compulsory cycling proficiency test for all kids before they can cycle to school I say.

  • Like 1

Saw the best initiative during the Ride London event on Sunday - marshalls at every pedestrian crossing carrying huge STOP signs on massive sticks to force cyclists to stop - perhaps this is something TFL should employ at every red light moving forward with those disobeying the lights getting swatted with the stop sign....;-) Stop.thumb.png.4eb484f78df9316bf296036d333a4019.png

  On 24/05/2024 at 17:02, Spartacus said:

Bring back compulsory cycling proficiency test for all kids before they can cycle to school I say.

Expand  

Wouldn't be a bad idea and would be beneficial to all road users. More so with Boris/hire bikes i do see some awful and stupidly dangerous  manoeuvr'es taken by the riders. I travel lots by bus and take the front seat upstairs when possible which gives one a great view. Have to say that i witness some awful risk taking by cyclists as well as little regard for the highway code which i think all road cyclists should be proficient in. If a moped user has to have passed a test to get on the road then i don't see why cyclist shouldn't either. It would be for everyone's benefit and certainly for the cyclists who are very much the more vulnerable when up against huge lumps of metal.

 

On the same tack i do think there should be some way that mobile devices are automatically disabled when in a moving vehicle. Form my view from the front of the bus it's very common to see drivers with there phones on laps and tapping or scrolling away one handed whilst there vehicle is moving. They're a terrible distraction and hard to put down for many. For balance i'd suggest the same for the cyclists that can cycle hands free while texting away. It's quite some skill but not so impressive when you see how vulnerable they leave themselves.

Edited by Dulwich dweller
spelling

The last manifesto included an extension of Bikeability training to every child
Government's 2020 'Gear Change' commitment was for 80% of children to receive this training

The latest analysis is they fell well short at 50%

https://www.bikeability.org.uk/blog/government-must-boost-cycle-training/

It's a good scheme but you will not make it compulsory as you cannot control who rides a bike, unlike driving where you are taking a big risk driving an unregistered car, without a driving license, and sooner or later would get caught on ANPR etc.

Many adult cyclists, similar to drivers, would consider that they don't need training, particularly older people and men.  As with driving EVERYONE benefits from training/refresher training.

I doubt if cycle training will feature in manifestos, there may be a pnony war around net zero,

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  On 28/05/2024 at 16:52, Dulwich dweller said:

Have to say that i witness some awful risk taking by cyclists as well as little regard for the highway code which i think all road cyclists should be proficient in.

Expand  

I think this is one of the major issues - nowadays almost anyone can rent a motorised Lime bike and head out onto the road. I was sat outside the Actress a while back and watched as, within minutes of one another, two people came flying up North Cross Road on Lime bikes and neither of them even paused to check whether anything was coming along Crystal Palace Road - they just drove straight across the junction without looking. If a car had been coming in either direction they would have been hit and no doubt local lobby groups would protest that another driver hit a cyclist when in fact it was the cyclists' stupidity that would have caused the accident.

It's clear more people need training on how to use bikes and I think initiatives like this are needed: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gnlv9mro

  • Like 2
  • 3 weeks later...

An adult family member was knocked over today by a speeding cyclist on a pavement who chose not to stop,  in SE London. I'm sorry, cyclist apologists but this is happening too frequently, and is wholly unacceptable. If you cannot cycle safely and without jeopardising others, then you shouldn't be allowed to cycle at all. And if you think that's actually OK, to use pavements to injure people and not even stop, then you (even if you don't do this yourselves) are despicable. The pavement was not, by the way, in anyway a 'dual use' route. My family member wasn't killed, thank goodness, or even very seriously injured, but that doesn't make it OK. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

There are 100s of thousands of cyclists.  Collisions with pedestrians are very rare.  Sorry to hear of the incident but there is a disproportionate response on this thread.  Please lobby your MP and the main political parties if you feel our politicians need to be doing more and complain to the police if you feel that they should be doing more.  Myself and all the cyclists I know would be horrified to have a collision with a pedestrian, even if every near miss and the one collision I have had, is due to the pedestrian not looking 

Ditto for the couple of times as a pedestrian I have had a near miss with a cyclist when I didn't look before dashing across a rod

That is not being an apologist.  Some people in life don't care about endangering others.most do 

Edited by malumbu
  • Agree 1
  On 18/06/2024 at 19:22, malumbu said:

Myself and all the cyclists I know would be horrified to have a collision with a pedestrian, even if every near miss and the one collision I have had, is due to the pedestrian not looking 

Expand  

How interesting that you think (this is a thread about cyclists on pavements) that it should be the pedestrian not looking for the cyclist, and not the cyclist failing to notice a pedestrian. How interesting that you think that it isn't up to the cyclist to be aware of other users - as a car driver who has passed a test for car driving I am required to be aware of, and alert to, other road users, let alone other pavement users (should I, as car driver, be driving on a pavement). Hazard awareness is a thing for car drivers, but obviously not for the eternally innocent cyclist.

  On 19/06/2024 at 08:53, Penguin68 said:

How interesting that you think (this is a thread about cyclists on pavements) that it should be the pedestrian not looking for the cyclist, and not the cyclist failing to notice a pedestrian. How interesting that you think that it isn't up to the cyclist to be aware of other users - as a car driver who has passed a test for car driving I am required to be aware of, and alert to, other road users, let alone other pavement users (should I, as car driver, be driving on a pavement). Hazard awareness is a thing for car drivers, but obviously not for the eternally innocent cyclist.

Expand  

In fact, in the new hierarchy of road users, the onus is on the cyclist to prioritise pedestrians - clearly something most are not aware of.

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

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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