Cyclists taking over paths!!

[malumbu]

33 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[Raeburn]

I agree, Brenchley is abysmal. I often ride on the pavement because it's so dangerous.

[first mate]

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 May 21 by first mate

[malumbu]

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

 

 

[Spartacus]

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 ? 

[Rockets]

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.

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

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

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?

[malumbu]

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 May 24 by malumbu
got my GE dates mixed up!

[Spartacus]

37 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

[Rockets]

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....;-) 

[malumbu]

Hope you enjoyed this festival of cycling.  If so, do post on the "joy of cycling" thread.

[Dulwich dweller]

On 24/05/2024 at 18:02, Spartacus said:

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

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 May 28 by Dulwich dweller
spelling

[malumbu]

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,

[Rockets]

22 hours ago, 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.

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

[Raeburn]

Brenchley closed this morning. Huge SUV across the pavement, grounded on bell bollard. Two fire engines using gear to lift it off.

[Kathleen Olander]

1 hour ago, Raeburn said:

Brenchley closed this morning. Huge SUV across the pavement, grounded on bell bollard. Two fire engines using gear to lift it off.

You seem to have posted on wrong discussion.

[malumbu]

It was fine at 8.20 when I cycled down it.  

[Kathleen Olander]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

It was fine at 8.20 when I cycled down it.  

So what????????  Later on it was closed both ways

[malumbu]

Is it open yet? I can always cycle through the park although at times the path is like crazy paving

[Penguin68]

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. 

[malumbu]

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 June 18 by malumbu

[alice]

If you cycle through the Brenchley Gardens then you were taking a risk

[Rockets]

Penguin68 sorry to hear this. It is a growing problem with some cyclists presenting increased risk to themselves, pedestrians and other road (and pavement) users by cycling in a selfish and dangerous manner. 

[Penguin68]

13 hours ago, 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 

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.

[Kathleen Olander]

14 hours ago, alice said:

If you cycle through the Brenchley Gardens then you were taking a risk

That's what I thought, the paths are narrow enough without having cyclists on them.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, 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.

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.