Cyclists taking over paths!!

[Rockets]

9 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We have multiple threads railing against what is objectively one of the most benign forms of transport bar walking.

Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

If you look at the numbers behind the chart, for pedal cycle and motorcycle under 50cc they are in single digits. One or two accidents in any year will therefore change how that end of the chart looks. What the graph shows is that there is one type of vehicle that is massively, disproportionately likely to kill or seriously injure pedestrians. It's not push bikes, or low powered scooters / motorbikes.

[first mate]

But this thread is about cycling on pavements. You are doing your usual 'yeah, but what about cars?' and deflecting in the process.

If you think it is fine for more cyclists to cycle on all and any paving, whether a shared space or not, just say, then we know where you stand. If you don't agree with that, then what can we do to ensure pedestrians feel safe on the pavement, without having to worry about random cyclists weaving in and out?

I see that Southwark have now put signs on Vanity Square, asking cyclists to dismount, so clearly even the Council must think there is an issue.

Edited October 16 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 14/10/2024 at 14:38, Earl Aelfheah said:

What I find so weird about threads like this is that I walk almost everywhere. I spend a lot of time travelling the pavements of East Dulwich and surrounding areas. I can't recall a single instance when I've had someone cycle past me on the pavement. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's certainly not something that has happened recently, or regularly, or that I felt sufficiently threatened or alarmed about to notice or recall.

I have never had anyone travelling by bike knock me over, or come close to it. All available evidence is that it's extremely rare for people to be injured by those travelling by bicycle. In terms of the risks posed to pedestrians safety (and over 400 are killed every year in the UK), push bikes are nowhere near the top of the list. 

So how can it be that some people genuinely believe that this is an endemic issue? That the pavements are literally being 'taken over' by 'cyclists' and that it represents a significant threat to pedestrian safety? 

No. I'm not. This is what I said. The point above is a response to Rockets claiming that bicycles are not 'one of the most benign forms of transport' and posting a chart which shows that in fact they are.

Speak to your mate about it if you don't want to discuss comparative data.

Edited October 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Nothing Earl, to stop you responding directly to me with thread-relevant thoughts on local cycling on pavements? Do you support this, yes or no? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Do I support people cycling on pavements? Of course I don't.

Luckily, the claim that 'cyclists are taking over the paths' of East Dulwich is ridiculous hyperbole, so I don't feel the need to start numerous threads wringing my hands over the unique and significant danger push bikes represent to the denizens of East Dulwich. 

If you see someone cycling on the pavement, maybe just have a word with them? 

Edited October 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Seems Southwark Council don't think it is hyperbole, else why the sudden appearance of advisory signs and stencils? Glad you confirm you do not support cycling on pavements. I am clearly seeing a lot more of this than are you. 

[Spartacus]

I sometimes feel, and it's only a feeling not based on fact or evidence, but is earl secretly Malumbu with his deflection tricks ? 🤔

[Earl Aelfheah]

What 'deflection tricks' are those exactly? I've simply pointed out that it is a massive exaggeration to say that 'cyclists are taking over paths'. It's clearly not true. How is this 'deflection'? Or do you think that disagreeing = deflection?

Edited October 16 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

In response, Southwark have put up signs around Vanity Square, asking cyclists to dismount in the pedestrian area. That suggests there is an issue.

[snowy]

The police actively support it in certain circumstances.

Cyclists dismount signs are advisory and not compulsory aren't they - as you point out. But generally for Risk and litigation management.

The signs also indicate its not 'pedestrian' space but shared space.

Given the amount of planning involved and the perception of a massive budget, if it was actually an issue they would have designed it differently. 

Edited October 17 by snowy

[first mate]

Currently advisory but presumably would not be put out unless an issue- I recently saw a number of cyclists weaving in and out of pedestrians in a small space, when they really could have dismounted. I take it you support this type of cycling behaviour and see no issue with it?

You seem to suggest that the signs are nothing more than a cynical, box ticking exercise by the council?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Given the amount of planning involved and the perception of a massive budget, if it was actually an issue they would have designed it differently. 

I am pretty sure Southwark have said that the new Dulwich Square has been re-designed to, amongst other things, slow cyclists - I am pretty sure it was in the consultation documents.

And the whole advisory defence is a one-way street for guidance to become mandatory.

Edited October 17 by Rockets

[snowy]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Currently advisory but presumably would not be put out unless an issue- I recently saw a number of cyclists weaving in and out of pedestrians in a small space, when they really could have dismounted. I take it you support this type of cycling behaviour and see no issue with it?

You seem to suggest that the signs are nothing more than a cynical, box ticking exercise by the council?

How do you propose telling a disabled cyclist to dismount? 

[ianr]

On 15/10/2024 at 20:30, Rockets said:

1. Not according to Dulwich Roads slide - was 2019 just a particularly bad year for deaths caused by cyclists? There seems to be a lot and they killed more than motorcycles and mopeds 50cc and under.

Can I have a link to the source of the slide please, preferably to the whole document in which it occurs as Figure 5.

[first mate]

20 hours ago, snowy said:

How do you propose telling a disabled cyclist to dismount? 

What an odd tangent? If anyone is cycling and able to dismount in a pedestrian area then they should. Clearly, if unable to dismount because of a disability then they won't. I would also make an exception for people on mobility scooters.

But is your point really relevant? Presumably Southwark Council don't think so or they would not have put out advisory signs saying "Cyclists dismount".

There is a very simple fix, adopted elsewhere

Campaigns

Edited October 18 by first mate

[snowy]

Its only an odd tangent if you don't think people with different needs are somehow 'othered' as you have done with your list of generous exceptions. 
 

You have already made an assumption that the people you saw 'weaving in and out' (do you mean cycling?) weren't disabled and/or weren't following a non statutory sign that they are perfectly permitted to ignore.

A charity yards away has been campaigning for its removal as people like you don't understand it: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/campaign-calls-for-action-on-discrimination-against-disabled-cyclists/

Its also not recommended as being used as per TFL LCDS as being 'unnecessary, or in some way compromising wider objectives of promoting safety'
 

Ironically, the yellow sign you have posted as an example of what could be done, is not a standard sign - as you can see it's temporary and not mandatory (indicated by the fact its in yellow and not round). It's not part of the TSRGD or the TSM. It was used on Wandsworth bridge from memory. 
 

Look forward to hearing your lobbying of Lou Haigh on the matter and of your support of Wheels for Wellbeing. 

[malumbu]

Wheels for Wellbeing do a wonderful job, thanks for raising.  Do visit them at Herne Hill Velodrome 

https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/our-campaigns/campaigning/guide/

Edited October 18 by malumbu

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, snowy said:

weren't following a non statutory sign that they are perfectly permitted to ignore.

Permitted to ignore...surely morally obliged to obey? This whole...the rules don't apply to us... is nonsensical.

 

In fact, the Dulwich Square signs are mandatory Road Closed signs with yellow cycle diversion signs - making them very much mandatory.

Edited October 18 by Rockets

[first mate]

16 hours ago, snowy said:

Its only an odd tangent if you don't think people with different needs are somehow 'othered' as you have done with your list of generous exceptions. 
 

You have already made an assumption that the people you saw 'weaving in and out' (do you mean cycling?) weren't disabled and/or weren't following a non statutory sign that they are perfectly permitted to ignore.

A charity yards away has been campaigning for its removal as people like you don't understand it: https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/campaign-calls-for-action-on-discrimination-against-disabled-cyclists/

Its also not recommended as being used as per TFL LCDS as being 'unnecessary, or in some way compromising wider objectives of promoting safety'
 

Ironically, the yellow sign you have posted as an example of what could be done, is not a standard sign - as you can see it's temporary and not mandatory (indicated by the fact its in yellow and not round). It's not part of the TSRGD or the TSM. It was used on Wandsworth bridge from memory. 
 

Look forward to hearing your lobbying of Lou Haigh on the matter and of your support of Wheels for Wellbeing. 

I think that those who are disabled are generally likely to support the idea that cyclists able to dismount and walk on pavements should do so, as a moral obligation. Able bodied cyclists weaving around pedestrians on the pavement can make pedestrians and those less able bodied feel at risk and uncomfortable. This is just common sense and it seems Southwark agrees. I think they are also likely to support Lime bikers dismounting when on single use pavement. With their proliferation, we are seeing Lime riders on pavements much more frequently, as well as Lime bikes left scattered on pavements- a further block for other pavement users, especially those who are disabled.

One of the pro cycling posters on here has in the past stated that disability scooters should not be allowed in cycle lanes as they would slow everyone down and they would not be able to do their commute or time rides as fast as they would like. They felt mobility scooter users should instead use bus lanes! I obviously hope that sense of priorities is not shared by you and your chums.

[Rockets]

P.S. there are also two big red cyclists dismount signs on the approaches to the pavement outside of the cheese shop in Dulwich Square, no doubt put there by tje council for those cyclists that, ahem, missed the road closed and cycle diversion signs.

Needless to say this morning many cyclists were missing the cyclist dismount signs too as they tried to squeeze their way through in front of the cheese shop.

[Spartacus]

Guess this could be a good thing

London royal Parks demand 20mph speed limit for cyclists. 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/royal-parks-london-speed-limit-cyclists-accidents-b1188932.html

personally I believe that before 20mph limits wete introduced, cyclists rarely exceeded the national speed limits, hence why they weren't considered as speeding, yet now everyone else is reduced to 20mph it's about time that it applied to all road users. 

Can't wait to hear the deniers cry that cyclists are special and cycling is sustainable, which has nothing whatsoever to do with speed. 

[malumbu]

Do you cycle?  Unless (a) you are a competitive racer (b) going down hill with no traffic (c) on an illegal bike few cyclists do this speed.  Rather than daft suggestions like this start of with getting motorists sticking to 20mph

And, has been said too many times not practicable to have speedometers on bikes.

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Do you cycle?  Unless (a) you are a competitive racer (b) going down hill with no traffic (c) on an illegal bike few cyclists do this speed.  Rather than daft suggestions like this start of with getting motorists sticking to 20mph

And, has been said too many times not practicable to have speedometers on bikes.

Of course you have that view 

It's interfering with the view that cyclists are somehow "special" and above the law 

Obviously you are stuck in the 70s as modern penny farthings are more than capable of speeds in excess of 20mph and cyclists use apps like Strava which uses GPS to show route and speeds, so hardly not practical, just inconvenient for people who don't give a shimano..... 

[Hen123]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

It's interfering with the view that cyclists are somehow "special" and above the law 

Motorists think they are above the law. Why else would so many break it? According to speed monitoring data the *average* speed of drivers in 20mph zone is 26mph. Why is that?