Cyclists taking over paths!!

[Spartacus]

Dear Earl 

The issue is not a few cyclists giving the majority a bad rep, but what appears the majority giving the few good ones a bad rep by their overall behaviour 

The example you quote of muggings and pedestrians would be equitable only if 80% (estimate) of pedestrians were mugging people. If that was indeed the case we would be 100% cracking down on those committing anti social or illegal behaviour, same way we should be doing it for cyclists flouting or breaking the rules. 

 

After all what's good for the goose.... 

[Earl Aelfheah]

40 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Dear Earl 

The issue is not a few cyclists giving the majority a bad rep, but what appears the majority giving the few good ones a bad rep by their overall behaviour 

The example you quote of muggings and pedestrians would be equitable only if 80% (estimate) of pedestrians were mugging people. If that was indeed the case we would be 100% cracking down on those committing anti social or illegal behaviour, same way we should be doing it for cyclists flouting or breaking the rules. 

 

After all what's good for the goose.... 

To suggest that the majority of people are uniquely anti-social when they travel by bicycle is nonsense (you don't have to believe me, there is plenty of research which shows people are no more likely to break the rules when they are travelling on a bike than by car).

Using a bike is one of the most benign choices you could possibly make when it comes to getting around, bar walking. It creates minimal pollution, takes up little space, doesn't cause the thousands of deaths and serious injuries that motor vehicles do each year, and improves ones fitness / general health (which collectively reduces strain on the health service).

Your post perfectly demonstrates what is so tedious about all the 'anti-bicylce' threads; full of basic prejudice and poor thinking (confirmation bias and group attribution errors). 

Edited September 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

26 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

To suggest that the majority of people are uniquely anti-social when they travel by bicycle is nonsense (you don't have to believe me, there is plenty of research which shows people are no more likely to break the rules when they are travelling on a bike than by car).

Obviously you don't cross the road when cyclists ignore red lights (one heck of a lot more than the odd car) or walk down pavements when cyclists use it to get around traffic.

In my experience it is the majority not the minority who break the rules 

I'm sure it's the same experience for a lot of pedestrians, hence why there is so much anger towards them. 

If you think differently then I suggest you should have gone to specsavers  to remove the rose tint from your old glasses. 😅

[first mate]

Earl, rules and etiquette around cycling are not clear and we see the negative results of this, daily. It is this aspect that must be addressed. Your sensitivity to what is obvious to many of us is beginning to remind me of the Dave Hill article.

Edited September 27 by first mate

[Nigello]

Dulwich Village is full of bad cyclists, pedalling furiously with kiddies on board, quite often, along the wider pavement on the park side that leads to the crossroads. Some considerate parents take their kids on the road in their Edwardian costermonger contraptions; some even corral their children on their own bikes (both of which are to be commended, showing that I’m not “anti-cyclist”). Why don’t they understand that cycling (even at moderate speed) and pedestrians (of all ages and abilities) just don’t mix? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Obviously you don't cross the road when cyclists ignore red lights (one heck of a lot more than the odd car) or walk down pavements when cyclists use it to get around traffic.

In my experience it is the majority not the minority who break the rules 

I'm sure it's the same experience for a lot of pedestrians, hence why there is so much anger towards them. 

If you think differently then I suggest you should have gone to specsavers  to remove the rose tint from your old glasses. 😅

You may notice infractions by people travelling on bicycle more readily than the endemic law breaking by people driving cars, but this is partly because the latter has become so normalised and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute.

There are numerous studies which look at this objectively and all conclude that there is no difference in the instances of rule breaking (in fact most show that people are generally more compliant on bicycles). For example, the DfT believes that 85% of drivers regularly break the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Phone use behind the wheel is common place, as are many other offences.

And most relevant of all, is the impact of bad behaviours on others. It is absolutely ridiculous  to imply that cycling (as I've said above, one of the most benign forms of transport) is some sort of unique menace on our roads. If you genuinely believe this, then you are really not paying attention to road traffic accident statistics. There are tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries every year on our roads. They are not caused by bicycles.

 

Edited September 27 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

"and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias  / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute."

And this illustrates not only your own biases (a seeming inclination to think other people are stupid) but also such a need to try to score a point that you roll over into unnecessary and offensive posting behaviour.

Edited September 27 by first mate

[Penguin68]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There are tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries every year on our roads.

The most recent figures are actually

in Great Britain in 2023 there were an estimated:

1,645 fatalities, a decline of 4% compared to 2022 

29,643 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties, little change compared to 2022

132,063 casualties of all severities, a decline of 3% compared to 2022

Considering the different road user types and demographics, the statistics show:

of the 4 main road user types, the road user type with the biggest estimated percentage change for 2023 compared to 2022 for fatalities was motorcyclists, which showed a decline of 12%

of the 4 main road user types, pedal cyclists had the biggest estimated percentage change for 2023 compared to 2022 for all casualties, which showed a decline of 6%

.......

In 2023, 46% of fatalities were car occupants, 25% were pedestrians, 19% were motorcyclists and 5% were pedal cyclists.

Of these 4 road user types:

the biggest percentage change compared to 2022 was for motorcyclists, which showed a decline of 12%

car occupant fatalities showed a decline of 5%

pedal cyclist fatalities showed a decline of 7%

pedestrian fatalities showed an increase of 6%

 

So, in general, the actual number of deaths was fewer than 2000 and casualty rates are falling for those using two wheels.

And yes, some (if few) of the deaths and casualties are caused by cyclists. Considering that only 5.5% of those seriously injured or worse were fatalities, it's not helpful (if strictly accurate) to talk about 'tens of thousands of deaths and...' as if the fatalities were a substantial portion of those seriously injured. And nearly half of those killed were in cars, and a quarter were pedestrians, the only growing cohort and the ones cyclists are most likely to injure.

[raptortruckman69]

I don't care what the studies say. It's obviously true that cyclists are routine law breakers. The studies are just manipulated data created by activists. There is no evidence that will convince me that what is intuitively true and what I can see work my own eyes is wrong.

 

But I love the cyclists here claiming to be in the tiny percentage of good ones who didn't break the law. I expect you are Lycra louts the lot of you.

Edited September 27 by raptortruckman69

[malumbu]

Irrational hatred of cyclists puzzles me.  The poster above appears to have named themselves after a large pick up vehicle so perhaps is of the view that cyclists should not be on the road, pavement or anywhere else.  Do you cycle yourself.

Others profess to cycle, and not be anti-cyclist, but posts suggest otherwise.  Blaming cyclists for LTNs surely cannot be the explanation.

Looking on line came up with a few explanations.  This one I liked: "Because when you behave like a car, leaving lots of space, being 100% strict at lights and crossings, you're slowing them down, and when you're not behaving like a car, taking advantage of being smaller, more nimble, and pre-empting green lights to safely get away from the cars, you p them off because they can't do the same." 

So frustration at journey times being quicker for bikes in many urban journeys perhaps has some role to play.

I thought that this article in the Guardian may be more illuminating: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/30/why-do-some-people-hate-cyclists-so-much

As for statistics for road users killed and seriously injured not really sure why this was posted here, beyond that it is too many.  I and others reach for the stats from time to time to show that cars are far more likely to harm you, but I'm not arguing car vs bike on this thread, which in any case drags you down manufactured culture wars.

I did participate in some banter about the London 2012 Olympics on one thread, suggesting somebody who really had detested them could get some therapy, the response took this in good spirit.  But I do worry that some of you wake up in the morning and immediately start hating cyclists. There are so many more things in life to rail about.  Crime against the individual including physical and physiological harm, crime as a whole, cover-ups and incompetence by the authorities (eg post office, Hillsborough, Covid and Grenfell),. climate change and geopolitics.  Not that I expect to change your minds.

[first mate]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Others profess to cycle, and not be anti-cyclist, but posts suggest otherwise.  Blaming cyclists for LTNs surely cannot be the explanation.

That's because for some of us cycling is a tool not membership of a club and culture. As for LTNs are you really suggesting that LCC and other cycling organisations have not campaigned long and hard for LTNs and CPZ? Getting members to piggyback onto consultations, even though they are not local.

The LCC website has page after page of advice directing members how to influence Councils, how to utilise social media, how to organise grass roots campaigning, just to get as many LTNs and CPZs installed as possible.

[raptortruckman69]

Is that really true? It's disgusting that cyclists feel that they should be able to influence politics. Motoring organizations consist of road tax paying motorist and corporation tax paying car companies. Typical of cyclists that they want to freeload off the democratic process. I deeply suspect there is a deeper influence behind some of the cycling groups, and ones like "solve the school run" are clearly using children as a shield to hide their true goals. That's even worse.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Others profess to cycle, and not be anti-cyclist, but posts suggest otherwise.  Blaming cyclists for LTNs surely cannot be the explanation.

To be fair Malumbu, some on here, rail against car use, champion a cleaner environment yet act in a most hypocritical way when it suits them to.

 

You know you can be a cyclist and not like the way a lot of cyclists behave. I am, I am also a car driver and hate the way some people drive and not afraid to say it. It just seems there is some vow of silence amongst many in the cycle lobby to acknowledge that there might be a problem being caused by their fellow cyclists - this where the cycle cult reputation comes from.

 

I think you'll find that history shows that the biggest lobby group working on councils to install LTNs was the cycle lobby - in all it's forms  and to suggest otherwise is blinkered.

[raptortruckman69]

It's also that for the last thirty years, the media has been fawning over cyclists and demonising motorists. There's a reason that motorists can get defensive, and expect cyclists to have some awareness of the situation especially given how dangerous bikes are now proving to be.

[first mate]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

I think you'll find that history shows that the biggest lobby group working on councils to install LTNs was the cycle lobby - in all it's forms  and to suggest otherwise is blinkered.

A visit to LCCs website will reveal just how involved the cycle lobby have been in LTNs and CPZ throughout London. For years they have urged members from all around London to involve themselves in council consultations on CPZ and LTN. It has been very deliberate and systematic.
I also find it strange that someone giving off such a strong air of moral superiority, telling us all to put our energy into more worthy issues, some of which they list, spends so much time on these threads.

[snowy]

OMG when i read they were called the London Cycling Campaign, i didn't think they would actually campaign for cycling in London. 

[raptortruckman69]

Like I said utterly disgusting. Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to influence politics at all, they should stick to getting from A to B in lycra while not breaking the law continuously.  They should be like motorists and quietly go about their day in a law abiding manger minding their own business and keep out of politics.

I can't believe these people want to have such an affect on the city they live in and to try and change it so it benefits them.

The question @first mate is how to we stop them, because as far as I can tell this is all legal. They will keep going until nothing remains by cycle paths.

 

[first mate]

27 minutes ago, snowy said:

OMG when i read they were called the London Cycling Campaign, i didn't think they would actually campaign for cycling in London. 

But a campaign to support cycling is one thing, a campaign to close off whole streets and increase traffic and pollution on boundary roads as a result is arguably stepping beyond the remit of encouraging and supporting cycling.

[Penguin68]

15 hours ago, malumbu said:

The poster above appears to have named themselves after a large pick up vehicle so perhaps is of the view that cyclists should not be on the road, pavement or anywhere else.  Do you cycle yourself

It's quite clear that this poster is posing as a mad super car driver to wind up, and indeed troll, the cycling lobby on this thread. And it seems to work! Indeed some suggest that the original targets are those who don't lobby for cyclists, by channeling a ridiculous driving character. Either way it's a troll and fits well with the procycling trolls on these threads. 

[raptortruckman69]

Nonetheless I agree wholeheartedly with @first mate, cyclists should stay well out of politics and leave the city and the rest of us alone. They have no right to turn up on mass to consultations and so on.

 

 

[malumbu]

I'm starting to enjoy your posts now. 

[first mate]

14 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm starting to enjoy your posts now. 

Yup that figures. Just wondering if Mr Chicken has a new alias.

Edited September 28 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

The absolute state of this thread.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

It's quite clear that this poster is posing as a mad super car driver to wind up, and indeed troll, the cycling lobby on this thread.

Indeed, it just shows the lengths some on the pro-LTN cycle/lobby will go. 

I would put good money the same person posts under another name on this forum as well.....

[first mate]

But given the things said, it does seem a bit sus that the poster has had so few responses. Perhaps the pro lobby either share the view on trolling or they know who the poster is?