Cyclists taking over paths!!

[first mate]

Malumbu wrote: "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"

I cannot believe this was not meant as some kind of provocative joke? How many near misses with pedestrians have you had then?

[malumbu]

Read my earlier post.  All near misses and one collision, when I actually fell off my bike onto a pedestrian, where were pedestrians crossed the road in front of me without looking.  I now pay even more attention in the smart phone age to the potential of this happening so even more aware.  As are most of the cyclists I know.  The issue with this thread is that some posters simply don't like cyclists for whatever reason.  I also said, for balance, that as a pedestrian I have run out in front of cyclists, a couple of times, without looking.  This pitching pedestrians Vs cycling is unhelpful and plays into the Daily Mail perspective on society 

[teddyboy23]

The most expensive street in London Kensington Palace Gardens as banned pedestrians and cyclists from using the road as a cut through.due to near misses with pedestrians and diplomats .by the behavior of cyclists

[RichH]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

This pitching pedestrians Vs cycling

No, it's the cyclists who are pitching the pedestrians... off the pavement, where the cyclists shouldn't be!  That is the point of this thread.  Off course your blinkered perspective prevents you from being able to see that (or much else) given your obsession with defending the cycling cult above all else, it seems.

Edited June 19 by RichH
Corrected a typo

[malumbu]

Cycling cult?    What nonsense.  Please do find a post of mine where I have defended cyclists on the pavement having confrontations with pedestrians.  Again playing into some silly culture war.

[first mate]

Thankfully, in all my years of cycling I have never had a near miss or collision with a pedestrian. I have had two near misses with a car and a lorry but the most near misses have been with other cyclists, when they were cycling recklessly and at speed.

[malumbu]

My first regular near misses with pedestrians not looking was when I worked close to Fleet Street.  Shoppers would just cross without looking.  Before smart phones and not with ear buds in.  In those days similar on Oxford Street.  Lucky you, not to have experienced this.  Near misses with motor vehicles due to them driving too closely or not seeing me?  In three figures with half a dozen involving being hit and once left for dead on Red Post Hill being taken out by a speeding motorist.  And yes I've had my hassles with those on two wheels, nowadays mainly food delivery ruderd often on illegal e bikes.

This feels like an anti cyclist thread than discussion and debate 

Edited June 20 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

This feels like an anti cyclist thread than any discussiion and debate 

From the very title of this thread, and much of the discussion, it would be possible to understand that this thread is indeed anti those cyclists who choose to ride on pavements (and, inter alia, injure pedestrians on those pavements). You appear to be arguing in your frequent interpolations that anything any cyclist does, ever, is fine with you - and indeed you have started, I believe, threads to this effect.

On my own behalf  I wish to clarify that (1) I am against adults cyclists who cycle on non-mixed use footpaths and pavements; (2) I am against those cyclists who choose to ignore the road rules placed on other road users (stop signs, zebra crossings etc., signalling intentions, showing lights at night etc.) and (3) I am concerned that (some) cyclists seem frequently to be unaware of hazards which a qualified driver would be expected to anticipate.

I have no problems with careful and attentive cyclists who use the roads with regards to other road users, both for the safety of these and their own safety - and indeed was a cyclist myself when younger and fitter. I have noticed that the number of careless and inconsiderate cyclists seems to have increased - but this is based on 'sample-of-one' observations and may not be generally true.

You should be pleased that almost on your own you have attempted much discussion and debate, although you have a tendency to generalise specific issues with specific cyclist behaviours into a more general discussion of cyclist behaviours under a multiple of circumstances, in order to let very specific transgressors 'off the hook' in my view, and you do seem to evidence some form of persecution complex such that criticism of specific behaviours (running into pedestrians on a pavement for instance) is taken as a personal critique of your own behaviours. But so be it.

[Rockets]

Spot on Penguin68 - there does seem to be some selective blindness amongst the cycling community and it is interesting how their own narrative has changed as more people experience the impacts of bad cycling. First it was very much the case of - "this just doesn't happen" and now when people are seeing it does happen then the narrative has shifted to "well we aren't as bad as car drivers".

 

Only the most myopic could spend any time walking around London and say that there isn't a problem with cyclists - I often stop to wait to cross at junctions and wince as I see cyclists steaming through the junction on red lights without looking as they would stand no chance if any vehicle was passing under the green light and then the response would be "look another car hitting a cyclist" when it was the very action of the cyclist that caused the accident.

 

There is a problem and the majority of the cycling community seems hell bent on refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[ed_pete]

Love the way you start with "some" and finish with "majority".  Perhaps you could add another paragraph and say "all".

As a regular cyclist I accept there are bad cyclists but I find that this kind of narrative is typical of the polarised rhetoric in so many topics these days.  

[Penguin68]

11 minutes ago, ed_pete said:

Love the way you start with "some" and finish with "majority".  Perhaps you could add another paragraph and say "all".

Being purely pedantic 'the cycling community' might be wholly blind to some (but not all)  flaws - i.e. but not to others, and the majority , but not all, could be hell bent on denying any flaws in general. It is possible for these statements not to be mutually exclusive. 

What is not being said is that the majority of cyclists are guilty of any particular flaws, but that cyclists, in general, feeling under pressure on threads like these, are prepared to deny that cyclists are particularly flawed (and of course many aren't). 

Many (albeit younger) cyclists I know consider that driving through red lights etc. is a risk they are prepared to take - and of course when they get it wrong they are far more likely to be seriously injured - without considering that this action still puts others at risk, either by riding into them (pedestrians crossing roads and not expecting  a cyclist to be space sharing) or by the consequence of avoidant actions taken by motorists trying not to hit them.

[Rockets]

52 minutes ago, ed_pete said:

As a regular cyclist I accept there are bad cyclists but I find that this kind of narrative is typical of the polarised rhetoric in so many topics these days.  

Do you think the problem is growing, stable or declining? To me, as a regular cyclist too, it is clearly growing and it clearly needs addressing.

[ed_pete]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

Do you think the problem is growing, stable or declining? To me, as a regular cyclist too, it is clearly growing and it clearly needs addressing.

Proportionate to the number of cyclists I'd say it's increased slightly over the years.  20 years ago (may even 10-12) you didn't have Lime bikes or food delivery by electric bikes both of which involve a time vs money element which can lead to poor behaviour which is then followed by cyclists with only pedal power.  But they aren't they only reason, in general I think there is just a sad lack of respect for the rule of law which is rarely policed.

 

[malumbu]

I've commented before.  I don't know if there are more cyclists on pavements, certainly we haven't taken over them and the title of the thread very much suggest and anti-cyclists agenda. 

It may be a simple case of more cyclists,including  less parents prepared to allow their kids to cycle on the road, totally bizarre in the village where you see a parent on Court Lane on the road, instructing there child on the pavement.  For heavens sake we have made this area so cycle friendly.  And the rise of food deliveries, never use them as I do not like the companies and the whole ethos of zero hours contracts encouraging poorly trained cyclists on illegal bikes cutting corners to minimise delivery times.  Make them permanent staff, provide legal bikes, lights and training.

I expect the youths you see flouting the regulations always behave do that over the decades and probably centuries.  It's called rebelling.  No doubt you and I did this in one way or another.

So useful to hear of hard evidence vs perception and bias.  I've posted in the past on how to address this - training, good citizenship and enforcement.

But a question back - police don't seem bothered, local authorities and national government ditto.  So either in the great scheme of things this is totally exaggerated or otherwise there is no political will.  On the latter why?

[RichH]

Oh please stop proselytizing and stick within the confines of the actual topic.  Your interminable sermons are very tiresome.

[malumbu]

?????  It's a fair question.  Why do the authorities including government not do more?  This is a discussion forum after all ☺️

[Rockets]

Malumbu, they are starting to police the problem but, unlike other road vehicles that have number plates, you cannot just stick up a camera and prosecute offenders - they have to put officers on the street to catch them at it - with great success apparently...if councils could raise revenue from offending cyclists they would as they would make a fortune...perhaps it is only a matter of time as the problem is getting worse.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cyclists-fined-city-police-london-bank-junction-b1152140.html

 

[Hen123]

Police resources are limited and should be focused on where the greatest threat to public safety is - which on the roads is car drivers. As has been explained many times before - 90% car drivers break the law on a regular basis and when they do they genuinely cause a serious risk to other road users. The 1000s car drivers kill every year and 10,000s they seriously injure is undeniable proof of that.  If you think number plates are the answer to errant cyclists- why hasn’t it worked with car drivers? 

[alice]

So you think if we eliminated license plates it would make no difference to the number of car accidents?

[Hen123]

Do you think they have stopped car drivers from killing 1000s of people every year? Do you think it is acceptable that car drivers think they are above the law and kill and injure so many people? What do you think more should be done about that? I realise this thread is about cyclists but it would be interesting to get your perspective on other errant behaviour on the roads that is several orders of magnitude more dangerous and what you think should be done about that. 

[Spartacus]

Hen123, the point of number plates,  isn't to stop accidents but to identify drivers who break the law or don't stop.

By that same principle making cyclist carry them, much like motorcyclists have to, won't stop them cycling on pavements or jumping lights but may make them easier to track when they do. 

So what's not to like about the idea 🤔 or do you think cyclists should be somehow above the law ? 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Hen123 said:

Police resources are limited and should be focused on where the greatest threat to public safety is - which on the roads is car drivers.

Nonsense. That's like saying police should only focus their resources on serial killers and ignore any other type of crime. Unless cyclists injure, maim or kill zero other roads users then they have to be policed to follow the rules.

 

This whole cars kills more people than cyclists so cyclists should not be policed to follow the rules narrative is so unbelievably selfish and blinkered - it's one of the things giving us cyclists such a bad name at the moment and I am astounded so much of the pro-cycle lobby (Chris Boardman etc) is daft enough to go there.

[Hen123]

I believe originally they were introduced for simple registration purposes as criminals were using cars to escape crime scenes rather than any specific road safety concerns. 

4 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Nonsense. That's like saying police should only focus their resources on serial killers and ignore any other type of crime. Unless cyclists injure, maim or kill zero other roads users then they have to be policed to follow the rules.

 

This whole cars kills more people than cyclists so cyclists should not be policed to follow the rules narrative is so unbelievably selfish and blinkered - it's one of the things giving us cyclists such a bad name at the moment and I am astounded so much of the pro-cycle lobby (Chris Boardman etc) is daft enough to go there.

They do that now. For example they focus their resources on things like knife crime and robbery - not littering and trivial violations of the Highway Code. They use common sense in their decision making. Good honest British common sense. I know you hate that but - maybe Reform will win the next election - then perhaps the police will start allocating resources based on the wild witterings of bigoted trolls on chat forums. Until then I think you might be out of luck. 

[Penguin68]

10 hours ago, Hen123 said:

For example they focus their resources on things like knife crime and robbery - not littering and trivial violations of the Highway Code.

When my daughter reported a road rage attack in progress on 999 (a car driver slamming into a cyclist who had annoyed him, 3 times pinning him and his bike to a parked car, totalling his bike and injuring him (attack with a deadly weapon - a car - actual bodily harm and criminal damage) - in Forest Hill Road they were not interested enough to attend - following up a couple of weeks later with a form. But perhaps that's just them being even-handed - after all in their minds it was probably just another trivial violation of the Highway code. They might have come out if my daughter had said they cyclist was lying unconscious or dying, but he was just walking wounded, as so many pedestrians are who are hit by cyclists on pavements. 

[Spartacus]

11 hours ago, Hen123 said:

not littering and trivial violations of the Highway Code. 

Therein lies the problem, cyclist think that when they break the rules it is a trivial violation of the highway code.