Cyclists taking over paths!!

[first mate]

Ilo said "Agree - but in a world of limited resources, there should be a risk based approach to identifying and mitigating possible danger."

And hence the starting point of this thread....many more cyclists on pavements.

[ilo]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

laser focus the need for people to stop cycling on paths.

You're not seriously telling me that you look at that graph and you think that the problem with danger on our roads is cyclists?

[first mate]

Blatant diversionary tactics going on here. The title and thread is very clearly about increasing issues with cyclists on pavements, not roads. 

[Rockets]

47 minutes ago, ilo said:

You're not seriously telling me that you look at that graph and you think that the problem with danger on our roads is cyclists?

Ha ha...where did I ever say that the cyclists were THE problem with danger on our roads....trying to put words into my mouth I see - a tactic oft used by many erstwhile posters on this forum! 😉

 

Also, your part clipping of quotes to suit your agenda is awfully reminiscent of tactics used by other some posters - hang on, might you be someone posting under a second account name? I am pretty sure you're not that daft as some of the new features of the forum might expose you and such behaviour is banned.......

 

I could spend time trying to explain the concept of deaths per mile travelled and what that means for the cycling numbers you shared (and thanks for sharing that graph and clarifying that this is deaths accounted for by mode as I am shocked as to how high the cycling figures are/were, especially when compared to motorcycles) but you are clearly here for the argument so I will let you try to work it out for yourself...

 

 

[first mate]

On 05/07/2023 at 10:19, Newmum2019 said:

It’s getting ridiculous now. I do understand why parents are worried about cycling with their kids on the roads but the amount of people cycling on the paths of East Dulwich is totally unacceptable. 

My son was nearly knocked the the ground coming out of our front garden by someone speeding past on a bike. Someone is going to be seriously injured.

To get us back on track a reminder of how this thread started. 
 

How can we sort this out before people do get hurt? 

[ilo]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha...where did I ever say that the cyclists were THE problem with danger on our roads....trying to put words into my mouth I see - a tactic oft used by many erstwhile posters on this forum! 😉

 

Also, your part clipping of quotes to suit your agenda is awfully reminiscent of tactics used by other some posters - hang on, might you be someone posting under a second account name? I am pretty sure you're not that daft as some of the new features of the forum might expose you and such behaviour is banned.......

 

I could spend time trying to explain the concept of deaths per mile travelled and what that means for the cycling numbers you shared (and thanks for sharing that graph and clarifying that this is deaths accounted for by mode as I am shocked as to how high the cycling figures are/were, especially when compared to motorcycles) but you are clearly here for the argument so I will let you try to work it out for yourself...

 

 

You're right - i thought it was high too.

Here are some figures over a number of years. 5 is on the high end.

It's always about 100x fewer than people who are killed by cars

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-killed-dangerous-cyclists-road-deaths-3812845

You can have the whole your quote to read back there too.

Deaths per mile traveled is a meaningless statistic to compare between bicycles. Cars spend ~20% of their time on motorways which are significantly safer.

12 minutes ago, first mate said:

To get us back on track a reminder of how this thread started. 
 

How can we sort this out before people do get hurt? 

This is exactly my point. People cycling on pavements is annoying, but it's not particularly dangerous.

[first mate]

Ilo, the OP clearly stated her son was nearly knocked over, that is more than annoying. You may not feel this is an issue but many others do. Repeatedly trying to divert the discussion into a completely different area is bad form.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, ilo said:

This is exactly my point. People cycling on pavements is annoying, but it's not particularly dangerous.

It was pretty dangerous to those 5 people killed.....which, as First Mate says, brings us back conveniently to the purpose of the thread....

[first mate]

Thinking in terms of mitigation. How about all adult cyclists should dismount on pavements unless:

-it has a dedicated marked out cycleway

-it is wide enough to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists, without crossover 

-there are no pedestrians in sight

-adults accompanying children on bikes on pavements should always dismount and walk

-no e-bikes or scooters on pavements, unless a marked cycleway

- cyclists should always stay close to the outer edge of the pavement unless a marked out cycleway

- when on a pavement cyclists should adopt the minimum speed possible and always give priority to pedestrians, mobility scooters and small children on scooters or bicycles

- wherever possible, adult cyclists and older children should use the road, especially on residential and side streets 

 

[malumbu]

We shouldn't be cycling on pavements.  That is quite simple.  It's a last resort.  Sorted, no need for any more rules 

[first mate]

6 hours ago, malumbu said:

We shouldn't be cycling on pavements.  That is quite simple.  It's a last resort.  Sorted, no need for any more rules 

Problem is even some people on this thread feel cycling on pavements is a non issue. It is clearly on the increase and without some clear guidance I suspect people will get injured at some point. Perhaps there needs to be a combined council and Southwark Cyclists education campaign, saying "no cycling on pavements, if you need to use the pavement dismount and walk".

I do think pedestrians, the vulnerable and disabled must have priority on pavements and should not be made to feel uncomfortable, on edge or intimidated, by inappropriate cycling. That message needs to go out so everyone is clear. The current lack of clarity is part of the problem.

[exdulwicher]

12 hours ago, first mate said:

 The current lack of clarity is part of the problem.

Very much agree with this but part of the issue is that for years councils have positively encouraged pavement cycling by creating "shared spaces" (in practice, usually a woeful mix of painted lines and badly drawn bike symbols) along pavements in order to "cater for active travel". It's a practice that is now thankfully recognised as being way below standard but it's created a total mish mash of "well it's OK to cycle along this bit but we've decided you can't ride along that identical bit so we've put a small blue "cyclists dismount" sign up".

What they were there for was mostly to get cyclists out of the way of drivers and it's not too bad when there's very few cyclists. As soon as it reaches a critical mass, it becomes inconvenient for everyone. Cyclists dodging pedestrians, pedestrians dodging cyclists, no-one making any progress. Cyclists get back on the roads, drivers get upset because they're not using the "cycle lane" and the council is under fire for wasting taxpayers money on such useless "infrastructure".

Plus as mentioned earlier, cycling on pavements is essentially decriminalised anyway - it's been touched on in this thread but the actual risk is very very small. Surprisingly cyclists don't actually want to hit pedestrians or lampposts or dogs because they'll fall off and hurt themselves. Self preservation usually minimises the real stupid stuff!

I can't find it at the moment but there was an incident a few years ago where a cyclist hit a pedestrian (no idea who's fault it was, can't remember the details) but the cyclist died and the pedestrian was basically uninjured. So it goes both ways.

[first mate]

I think the danger here is being too, dare I say, literal. There are few deaths caused by cyclists on pavements to date, so we don't need to worry. Having to dodge cyclists or discarded bikes may be a mere inconvenience to younger, fitter pedestrians but if you are vulnerable or less physically able it becomes something more. There can also be a sense of menace or a perception you are not safe if you have a few near misses- a bit like the mother of the four year old who started this thread. Pavements should be places you can feel relatively safe and where pedestrians must have priority.

There is the additional aspect of mugging and phone snatching. Again, let's not pretend that normalising cycling on pavements is not going to increase those risks. Finally, it is not just push bikes but also e-bikes and sometimes modified e-bikes, like the ones on Peckham High St, where riders are doing 50mph. Pedestrians are already complaining and saying they feel menaced. I believe the police are starting to take notice and action.

For reference https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/police-to-target-modified-e-bike-riders-who-speed-down-peckham-high-street-at-50mph/

Edited July 22, 2023 by first mate

[Bic Basher]

I saw a modded e-bike going up Eynella Road on Friday evening.  The 'cyclist' made no effort to even use the peddles.

[malumbu]

Funny thing about Peckham is that pedestrians can be a menace not looking out for bikes, legitimately on the cycle lane.  This goes back to my point about sharing space and training for all road users.

[exdulwicher]

10 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

I saw a modded e-bike going up Eynella Road on Friday evening.  The 'cyclist' made no effort to even use the peddles.

Yep but as discussed earlier, those things are already illegal no matter where they are.

But society seems to want a Big Mac or a vindaloo delivered to their door in 15 mins and as a result all the gig economy workers are effectively being incentivised to ride "creatively" in order to fulfil this.

[first mate]

The current laissez faire attitude to cycling on any pavement and general muddled approach by the council has encouraged this behaviour, albeit illegal. Convenient but slightly misleading to say it's all the fault of the public in encouraging delivery by e-bike or scooter. The aim is to encourage use of such vehicles for myriad businesses, is it not? 

I suspect there are also those who just enjoy speeding and the thrill of dodging obstacles and pedestrians. Doubt it is just delivery drivers.

 

Edited July 23, 2023 by first mate

[malumbu]

Not Southwark specific, most local authorities across the country are doing similar.  Write to your MP and ask what government is doing (sfa), why do some many of you immediately put the blame on Southwark?  Ah, LTNs of course ...

[first mate]

But I live in Southwark and they have a big role in managing the roads and pavements, and they apparently have a whacking great cash surplus farmed from that role too. Perhaps some of that money could be used to manage cycling behaviour, rather than leaving it to the police. There is also a great deal local cycling activists and cycle lobby groups could do to get the word out that it isn't 'cool' to cycle on pavements.

[exdulwicher]

16 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps some of that money could be used to manage cycling behaviour, rather than leaving it to the police. There is also a great deal local cycling activists and cycle lobby groups could do to get the word out that it isn't 'cool' to cycle on pavements.

You have to create Public Space Protection Order for the council to enforce anything. They're used occasionally in defined spaces like a pedestrianised high street but they can't just blanket apply to "pavements".

There's plenty of guidance out there from Sustrans, British Cycling, Cycling UK, London Cycling Campaign etc about rules of the road but the people who need reminding of it are the ones who don't care anyway. Much like there is plenty of guidance around not speeding, parking on pavements, blocking junctions, using mobile phones while driving etc and still people do it. 

Which brings us right back to the earlier point. Asking nicely doesn't work.

[first mate]

Ex, I assume there will soon be a big increase in parking wardens, or CSO's, they should be well placed to 'police' poor cycling behaviour as they go on their patrols. I don't believe I have ever seen any guidance from the organisations mentioned. It does not feel as though it is 'out there'.

Sure there are still those who ignore guidance on safe driving, but there are penalties if you are caught. The whole cycling on pavements issue is wide open to abuse and the council are turning a blind eye.

[exdulwicher]

53 minutes ago, first mate said:

Ex, I assume there will soon be a big increase in parking wardens, or CSO's, they should be well placed to 'police' poor cycling behaviour as they go on their patrols. I don't believe I have ever seen any guidance from the organisations mentioned. It does not feel as though it is 'out there'.

Sure there are still those who ignore guidance on safe driving, but there are penalties if you are caught. The whole cycling on pavements issue is wide open to abuse and the council are turning a blind eye.

Have you missed or misinterpreted everything I've said?!

For a Council Officer to enforce no cycling, you need a PSPO:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_spaces_protection_order#:~:text=Public%20spaces%20protection%20orders%20

It needs to be specific so it has to specify the act you're attempting to control (dogs not on leads, cycling, etc) and the area in which it applies. You can't just say "pavements".

If there's not a PSPO in place, the only legal enforcement is through police officers and (to a certain extent) police community support officers. Not traffic wardens, parking enforcement officers, street cleaners etc.

Guidance - well it depends how much you're looking for it. That applies to everything, to a certain extent you're going to have to search for it. Guidance on using the Tube in London - well if you've never used it before, you're going to need some sort of help and yes it'll be "out there" in as much as it's a public website but anyone who doesn't use the Tube would have no reason to look for it.

As it happens, the Lime bikes and Santander apps both require you to go through a host of rules before they'll let you hire a bike but again, the kids jacking them are not using the app, not using the bikes legally and don't care anyway. 

It would be handy if cars made the driver run through a Highway Code refresher every time they started the engine too.... Maybe some geofenced speed limits like you get on hire bikes and scooters!

Penalties apply for both cycling and driving if you're caught. Usually they're considerably more draconian for cycling! (believe it or not).

For example :

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps1000-riding-bike-town-centre-302721

[first mate]

In terms of PSPOs, what would be the problem with one that said no cycling on pavements unless a dedicated, marked cycle lane?

Edited July 24, 2023 by first mate

[exdulwicher]

6 hours ago, first mate said:

In terms of PSPOs, what would be the problem with one that said no cycling on pavements unless a dedicated, marked cycle lane?

1) The Highway Code already says that and it's already enforceable.

2) A PSPO has to relate to a specific area. You can't just apply it to "all pavements in Southwark". They're also something of a last resort.

https://asbhelp.co.uk/home-practitioners/public-spaces-protection-order/

[Rockets]

After Malumbu and Mr Chicken foolishly called me out about parts of Amsterdam banning cycling I dug out this article on the issue.  Any of these problems look familiar?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-27/easing-tension-between-dutch-cyclists-and-walkers

Edited July 29, 2023 by Rockets