Cyclists taking over paths!!

[teddyboy23]

So what happened 

Edited June 28 by teddyboy23

[Rockets]

Well it seems the offer of a duel at dawn from Hen123 (are they any relation of Mr Chicken per chance) was the catalyst for Clean Air for all Dulwich to go stand at the DV junction...and just look what they saw...and filmed....scenes very familiar to anyone who uses that junction...but, you know, anyone who dares suggest there might be a big problem with cyclist behaviour is just a bigot.

 

 

[first mate]

• Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing.
• Where there is an advanced stop line (ASL) cyclists can position themselves ahead of the motorised traffic but behind the ASL, though crossing the ASL on red is still an offence.
• It’s also an offence to ride through an amber light, unless you are so close to the stop line that to stop might cause a collision, although if the traffic lights aren’t working all road users are permitted to treat the situation as they would an unmarked junction, and “proceed with great care”.

[Rockets]

The council ought to get some officers down there like the City of London police did at bank - there are rich pickings there and they're leaving a lot of money on the table! 😉 They could do with some cash as the works that are about to start at that junction, which are going to take 4 months and cause a lot of disruption according to the leaflet that the council dropped through our door warning residents about the disruption, is costing a fortune ion tax-payers money!

[march46]

The anti-cycling rhetoric on here ignores the most serious road danger in the area. 

 

[Spartacus]

March46, looks to me like the railing did what ot was designed to do, protecting pedestrians.

The rhetoric that it is a 20mph zone is interesting as that could easily be caused by a lorry or large vehicle clipping it as it turned the corner and unless the actual circumstances of the accident are known then the speed limit is a red herring.

Protection like these are normally installed after issues have occurred thete in the past so they are obviously still needed by the looks of them.

 

 

 

[Kathleen Olander]

4 hours ago, march46 said:

The anti-cycling rhetoric on here ignores the most serious road danger in the area. 

 

Those railings weren't fitted very well were they?

 

 

[Nigello]

These and other railings near schools are often used by private firms to hang advertising on, meaning kids of primary school age cannot see what’s coming a distance away (because they are not tall enough to see over). This strikes me as a hazard. 

[malumbu]

Please don't excuse, or make facetious comments, about vehicles hitting pedestrian railings close to a school.  The suggestion that it was only a large vehicle 'clipping' the gates is ridiculous.  Something has collided with them.

The railings I expect are to stop pedestrians crossing the road, rather than protect them from bad drivers

 

Edited July 9 by malumbu
correcting that this was close to a school and the natrure of the railings

[march46]

And someone (aka a driver) was responsible for the vehicle 

[first mate]

Please don't try to derail and take this thread off subject; it is about cycling behaviour. Do start another thread on the railings and whatever you think caused them to fall over.

BTW, I do not think stating law that applies to all road users, including cyclists, can be classified as "anti cycling rhetoric"?! I pasted this in the context of the video of multiple cyclists running red lights in Dulwich village:

• Crossing the stop line when the traffic lights are red (jumping red lights) is an offence which the police usually deal with via a fixed penalty notice (FPN) fine (typically £50), as is riding across a cycle-only signal crossing if the green cycle symbol isn’t showing.

Edited July 9 by first mate

[Kathleen Olander]

12 hours ago, malumbu said:

Please don't excuse, or make facetious comments, about vehicles hitting railings outside school gates.  The suggestion that it was only a large vehicle 'clipping' the gates is ridiculous.  Something has collided with them.

It was in Barry Road and not outside school gates.

[first mate]

Thanks for the clarification, some posters playing fast and loose with the facts maybe?

Again, can the more myopic cycling proselytisers respect thread titles and cease  trying to derail them, please!

[Rockets]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/cyclists-london-safe-bike-pedestrian-drivers-roads-b2583927.html

[first mate]

Sunday last, cycling through Dulwich Square, other cyclists ignoring red light and cycle filter red lights. What is the point of the cycle filter if it is ignored?

[march46]

Off topic, this thread is to complain about cyclists on the pavements is it not? 🙄

[malumbu]

No, it is to complain about cyclists such as me who are helping to save the planet and smugly tell everyone this.  

But to be more serious it's a mix between a genuine issue of persuading those who have not reason to cycle on the pavement, not to.  Which I do from time to time.  (Ask people to cycle on our cycle friendly roads).  And those who blame cyclists for the introduction of measures to reduce car use.

[Rockets]

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

No, it is to complain about cyclists such as me who are helping to save the planet and smugly tell everyone this.  

Clearly it's not but you may be onto something about the smugly bit!

It's about trying to get cyclists to obey the rules and be respectful of other roads users, especially pedestrians (who are the most vulnerable road users and are afforded protection as such in the Highway Code - which many cyclists seem not to be aware of or ignore). The problem of bad cycling is growing, and at a far greater rate than any cycling growth. The 33% increase in pedestrians being hit by cyclists since 2020 is a very telling stat - one that many on the pro-cycle lobby seem keen to ignore.

What it is actually trying to do is to get people like you (and March46) in the cycle lobby to acknowledge there is a problem and work with people to help resolve it instead of having you bury your heads in the ideological sand and try to convince people there is not a problem.

The pro-cycle lobby can deflect and derail as much as they like (they seem to be trapped in this narcissistic headspace that only cyclists matter) but the problem is not going away and I suspect the only resolution is for draconian measures to be brought upon all cyclists to ensure compliance.

Interestingly Peter Walker has another, ahem, "exclusive" (how does he do it!) where the cycle lobby calls for an end to the culture war on cyclists, whilst lobbying for more cycle infrastructure and investment:

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/jul/21/cycling-campaigners-call-for-end-to-culture-war-on-active-travel

 

What's really interesting is that, whilst calling for 10% of all transport spend to be invested in active travel and at the same time lobbying for more cycle infrastructure, the head of Cycling UK calls for any debate on the issue to be "evidence based". This seems like a very risky strategy for the cycle lobby as clearly the investment in cycle infrastructure (which has come at a massive detrimental cost to public transport and pedestrians) has not delivered what was promised and any proper independent evidence-based analysis would likely say cycling is not delivering and that the priority needs to be focussed on buses and pedestrians (especially in cities like London that have pretty much ground to a halt due to the over-indexing on cycling from the cycle-lobby leaders that have been given roles to manage active travel prioritisation and investment).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Wow, this is a weird thread.

Probably doesn't need stating, but most people who travel by bike, will also (at other times) travel by car, and by public transport... and nearly everyone is a pedestrian. So the whole 'motorist' or 'cyclist' as an identity, creates more heat than light imo. It is often the same people who behave carelessly however they're travelling - and it's the attitudes and behaviours of those people that need to be addressed.

People need to take more care on our roads. Obviously this means people walking, or traveling by bike taking care.

People particularly need to watch out / take care around pedestrians, when they're using bicycles to get about, as well as when using a car (especially when using a car).

All this said, I do find it strange how disproportionate the number of threads there are on this forum focussed on those who behave irresponsibly specifically when they're on a bicycle (as opposed to when they're behind a wheel of a motor vehicle). It feels like it's more about identity / footballification than anything else.

There is no getting away from the fact that nearly all of the 30K odd serious injuries and deaths on UK roads each year are the result of incidents involving motor vehicles; This is the primary reason for our roads being dangerous. Strange how few threads we have discussing this.

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:22 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is no getting away from the fact that nearly all of the 30K odd serious injuries and deaths on UK roads each year are the result of incidents involving motor vehicles; This is the primary reason for our roads being dangerous. Strange how few threads we have discussing this.

 

There are probably so few threads discussing this because every thread that, for example this one, says there is an increasing problem for pedestrians being caused by cyclists gets hijacked by someone from the pro-cycle lobby saying...but cars kills more people than bikes do. 

Which is exactly what you have just done - again. Thank you!

 

[first mate]

And always goes into massive uk-wide generalisations. We've said, so many times now, that the focus of the forum and a thread on the ED traffic section on the forum should be about ED and the Dulwich area, specifically. Unless some are trying to get the thread lounged by taking it off course (surely not)?

All that said, I am not denying there is a problem with dangerous/ careless car driving. I have real contempt for those that flout 20mph...no excuse.

But can we try to stick to the growing issue of cycling on pavements and start thinking about what can be done to stop that locally?

Edited Tuesday at 17:23 by first mate

[malumbu]

I've had no traction in discussing solutions here.  Mine, as said before, is education, training and an end to fabricated culture wars car drivers Vs other road users.  Labour has made a good start on ending the latter, and TfL has consistently presented a strong message about sharing our roads.

As for enforcement on two wheels illegal e scooters and bikes are a bigger issue, in part the authorities need to stop pandering to the delivery companies. Hard line on importation of illegal vehicles  And as consumers we should exercise our powers by not using Deliveroo etc until they sort out their act, even better PAYE for their delivery cyclists.

And of course echoing others that motorised vehicles do far more harm.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

And of course echoing others that motorised vehicles do far more harm.

Ha ha...you just can't help yourself can you! In one breath you are urging people to end the culture wars and by the end of your post you're continuing to wage one....can you not see the irony there? 

 

Edited Tuesday at 21:51 by Rockets

[malumbu]

It would be good if you engaged in the debate.  In this occasion solutions. The numerous personal snipes over the last two years or so are unhelpful. I provided factual context, in that cyclists will not be the top of the list for authorities as public enemy number 1.  And as others have reported most cyclists are also pedestrians, public transport users, and pedestrians.  The us vs then helps nobody.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets you clearly see any debate about road safety or transport in general as a binary opposition - cyclists versus motorists. Have you ever considered that people behaving badly will often travel on bike and at other times travel by car (or foot)? That they’re the same people?

Is bad road behaviour an issue of bad behaviour, or an issue of the mode of transport being used at the time of the bad behaviour? And if the latter, why is it specifically when they are behaving badly on a bicycle that appears to be your primary concern?

@first mate re. your post complaining about national statistics on road injuries and deaths- are you suggesting that in London people pose a greater risk and cause more serious injuries and deaths when they are travelling on a bicycle than in a motor vehicle?

Edited Wednesday at 05:54 by Earl Aelfheah