Can we ban cyclists from rye lane?

[civilservant]

After the lengthy shenanigans at the Elephant to give cyclists their very own space, I was bit bemused last night to see a cyclist in full Lycra barrelling along on the pavement, right next to the cycle lane.

Does anyone wonder why the rest of us hate cyclists? It may be just one bad apple but since most of them are masked by their helmets and Lycra, with no number plates or other ID, no one can tell which one it is.

[Otta]

pg500 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cycle up and down Rye Lane pretty much every

> day.

>

> That stretch of pathway is so poorly marked it is

> not surprising that pedestrians stray across the

> cycling strip without looking. However even if it

> was clearly marked cyclists really must anticipate

> that pedestrians may well pop out from

> behind/between buses and therefore moderate their

> speed where vision is limited.

If only all cyclists could be as reasonable as you, and not just defensive we'll do what we want" types.

I remember about 12 years ago crossing the top of Rye Lane (near the old W H Smith) between 2 buses (silly on my part I admit, but loads of people do it every single hour of every day). As I stuck me head out to peek around the bus, it was nearly knocked off my shoulders by a cyclist going VERY fast. Had I just stepped out it would have been nasty for one or both of us.

Now he could rightly argue that I shouldn't have been crossing between two buses. He'd be right. But the fact is that people do cross between two vehicles all the time, and whether they should be doing that is basically irrelevant. It happens and cyclists need to be aware of it and go slower in areas like that.

[Nigello]

Some cyclists use the pedestrian crossing at Peckham Library and use the corner of pavement to join the "hidden" cycle path. It's badly designed and encourages lawless cycling in an area that's got pretty heavy footfall. Pedestrians: don't jaywalk and be alert. Cyclists: use only the road or designated lanes, not pavements. Fair enough?

[Earl Aelfheah]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does anyone wonder why the rest of us hate

> cyclists? It may be just one bad apple but since

> most of them are masked by their helmets and

> Lycra, with no number plates or other ID, no one

> can tell which one it is.

?!

[Alan Medic]

What about speedbumps for cyclists?

[DulwichFox]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What about speedbumps for cyclists?

NO.. Stingers.. then open a roadside Puncture Repair Service 50 yards up the road..

Local enterprise .. :)

Foxy

[malumbu]

civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> After the lengthy shenanigans at the Elephant to

> give cyclists their very own space, I was bit

> bemused last night to see a cyclist in full Lycra

> barrelling along on the pavement, right next to

> the cycle lane.

> Does anyone wonder why the rest of us hate

> cyclists? It may be just one bad apple but since

> most of them are masked by their helmets and

> Lycra, with no number plates or other ID, no one

> can tell which one it is.

My you lot are tolerant. Jealous I'd say. I'll be cycling home in a second and I can put reasonable money on not having any problems with pedestrians and visa versa. Move on, nothing to see here.

[TheArtfulDogger]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What about speedbumps for cyclists?

Good idea then the BMX krew could use them as well 😱

[yourmomma]

alice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have had a great idea. but would it be popular?

No you haven't. No it wouldn't.

[alice]

All great ideas start off being unpopular.

[Blah Blah]

Alice, at some point later last year, a pedestrian was killed by a lorry while crossing no more than ten metres away from the pelican crossing on the High Street. That's what can tragically happen when someone takes a risk. I don't know if you are trolling here or not, but anyone can see how ridiculous your reasoning is.

[civilservant]

this is the Forum after all, and Alice can approach the issue any way she likes

BB, it's not sensible to compare the (rare) realisation of a risk (pedestrian killed by lorry while crossing irresponsibly) with the much more frequent near-misses that well-behaved pedestrians have with cyclists behaving irresponsibly.

I first posted on this thread to point out that although a lot of thought and money's been spent on cyclists, as well as huge patience among other road-users in places like the Elephant, (some) cyclists still insist on flouting the rules.

a general point - as a pedestrian, i can easily see an approaching car or lorry and make a decent judgement of whether it is safe to cross.

But with cyclists, their speed is out of all proportion to their visual impact on the street scape - they zip along like neutrinos - tiny mass and huge speed. So that they're near invisible until they're on top of you. That's scary for a pedestrian.

and what's also scary is the reluctance to stop at crossings. So very often crossed at a green light or a pelican crossing and had to jump out of the way of cyclists who don't think that THEY need to stop.

i've got no problem with cycling - it's about some cyclists.

how about all you cyclists out there do a bit of policing of your own kind instead of chuntering on about how fast and easily you can zip home compared to us pedestrian snails?

[exdulwicher]

how about all you cyclists out there do a bit of policing of your own kind instead of chuntering on about how fast and easily you can zip home compared to us pedestrian snails?

I really hate this idea that somehow there's a collective responsibility for cyclists that is not applied elsewhere. I (as a cyclist) am not responsible for the behaviour or actions of any other cyclist in the same way that I (as a pedestrian) am not responsible for the behaviour or actions of any other pedestrian.

If I reversed your statement and said "well the next time you're on Rye Lane, how about you police some of those pedestrians walking round with their heads in their phones, stepping off kerbs without looking..." you'd rightly tell me to go away!

Some PEOPLE are irresponsible/selfish. Not cyclists. People. Some people are irresponsible and selfish behind the wheel of a car, as bus passengers, as pedestrians, as cyclists. The common factor is people, not mode of transport.

Please don't go down the road of collective responsibility or (worse still) the awful phrase "gives other ... a bad name".

You wouldn't use it anywhere else. You would never (I hope!) in a million years expand that phrase to include for example "all Jewish people" / "all gay people" a bad name because of the actions of one so don't try to apply it to "cyclists". It's a lazy and completely wrong argument.

[civilservant]

"all gay people, all Jewish people" - again a spurious analogy

noone was born with a bike attached - it's a conscious choice to ride a bike as much as it's a conscious choice to be a socially responsible cyclist (or citizen, for that matter)

doesn't get around the real issue that with other forms of transport, there are well-defined rules and a shared understanding of what they are. if every cyclist readily acknowledged that they as a road-user have responsibilities to other road-users, then fine. until then, there is a problem IMHO.

[exdulwicher]

Interestingly, that actually touches on the main issue here (basically, lawbreaking).

For many years, cycling in/around London was essentially the preserve of the fit and the foolhardy - the only people happy duelling with buses, lorries etc which narrowed the demographic overwhelmingly. And the only behaviour that would help you in this was risk-taking. Jumping lights, hopping pavements, most of it was simply survival rather than a conscious desire to break the law. Most people have a very good moral compass around laws, etiquette etc (although when it comes to road use, that often breaks down with "minor" offences like speeding, pavement parking, yellow box infringement etc so common that no-one even bats an eyelid).

if every driver readily acknowledged that they as a road-user have responsibilities to other road-users, then fine. until then, there is a problem IMHO.

However, gradually that picture is changing. Congestion charge, hire bikes, tube strikes, economics and more cycle infrastructure have put more people on bikes. That infrastructure however is the stumbling block. Built to no national standard, often as a tickbox exercise in "green transport", it is actually directs cyclists to ride on pavements or to ride up the inside of queuing traffic (both things which your old cycling proficiency test said "DO NOT DO THIS!") and I can cite numerous occurrences where a shared use foot/cycle path will evaporate in the middle of nowhere leaving a rider completely abandoned in the middle of a pavement or dump a rider out into the middle of a junction.

Have a look here for some wonderful examples of what passes for "infrastructure" here in the UK:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

Most people do acknowledge that they have a responsibility to themselves and others its just that when you're vulnerable and surrounded by tonnes of steel, you very much tend to look out for number 1. And cyclists really don't want to it anyone or anything themselves. Whether or not they care about anything else is irrelevant; if a cyclist hit someone or something, they'll fall off, end up hurt and their bike might end up damaged so they really want to avoid that!

Slight tangent to the OP but there is a much bigger issue here than simply some cyclists being reckless (although yes, that is part of the problem in the same way that a speeding driver is reckless).

[civilservant]

agree with everything you say, exdulwicher - thank you and goodnight!

[malumbu]

Total bollox. It may sound like an academic treatise but you are talking out of your rrrrssss - 'the preserve of the fit and the foolhardy' what utter tosh.

Cycled for 28 years in London as it is the quickest way from A to B for most of my journeys.

Readily jumped lights for years for a mixture of reasons - saving time, pointless lights, some belief of morale highground, and general immaturity.

Do much less nowadays as I am influenced by some of the arguments, this is nudge in action (if I come across others stopped at lights I am less likely to jump them), and greater maturity/responsibility.

Spend an hour at the ligths by Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road and count how many drivers run the lights. And then come back with your argument. Two wrongs don't make a right but have some bally consistency in your argument.

If you want a proper debate let's talk about cutting emissions (carbon and pollution) and what cycling can or cannot provide. It wont be any help if all you do is increase congestion (Elephant and Castle is no safer and my journey times are longer, let alone all the peed off drivers and bus passengers).

Difficulty with this thread as posts such as the ones above make me think that all residents of SE22 are pompous and self important. Of course you are not. Perhaps join us in our cycling revolution. And go to Copenhagen for your summer holiday.

[Sue]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Readily jumped lights for years for a mixture of

> reasons - saving time, pointless lights, some

> belief of morale highground, and general

> immaturity.

>

> Do much less nowadays as I am influenced by some

> of the arguments, this is nudge in action (if I

> come across others stopped at lights I am less

> likely to jump them), and greater

> maturity/responsibility.

You shouldn't be bloody jumping lights at all, however you try to rationalise it to yourself and others.

And if saying that means I am "pompous and self important", well I have two words to say in response to that. One begins with F, and the other begins with Y.

[civilservant]

> reasons - saving time, pointless lights, some

> belief of morale (sic) high ground, and general

> immaturity.

you couldn't have put the anti-cycling case better...

[exdulwicher]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What about speedbumps for cyclists?

Tends to just make people fall off! To slow riders down you generally want to use chicanes or narrowings, not big lumps in the road.

This highlights a further problem with the infrastructure which I mentioned above - by putting in restrictions like that you can make it very difficult for recumbents, bikes towing kiddie trailers, laden touring or cargo bikes and even wheelchairs/motorised scooters which are also allowed to use cycle lanes.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I cannot understand how people identify as being 'anti cycling' just because they've seen someone on a bike acting like a dick. The psychology is actually quite ugly - picking on a visible 'out group' and then indulging in a healthy bit of confirmation bias to help identify and generalise any observed negative behaviours to the 'group'. Jeez, cylcists aren't even a coherent group in the first place - The vast majority are also car drivers. The idea that there is a particular problem with cyclists causing carnage on the roads through their unique lack of abidance for the rules of the road, simply isn't born out by the facts. Of all the modes of transport to direct your ire at, cycling is surely the most benign (after walking). People who rant against cyclists are in my opinion, engaged in a rather obvious form of displacement activity.

[Sue]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cannot understand how people identify as being

> 'anti cycling' just because they've seen someone

> on a bike acting like a dick. The psychology is

> actually quite ugly - picking on a visible 'out

> group' and then indulging in a healthy bit of

> confirmation bias to help identify and generalise

> any observed negative behaviours to the 'group'.

> Jeez, cylcists aren't even a coherent group in the

> first place - The vast majority are also car

> drivers. The idea that there is a particular

> problem with cyclists causing carnage on the roads

> through their unique lack of abidance for the

> rules of the road, simply isn't born out by the

> facts. Of all the modes of transport to direct

> your ire at, cycling is surely the most benign

> (after walking). People who rant against cyclists

> are in my opinion, engaged in a rather obvious

> form of displacement activity.

I think civilservant was referring to malumbu's ridiculous post.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

[GenieScrase]

I am a 26 year old SE London local woman. I have cycled down rye lane for the past 7 years.

And you're not going to stop me.

[alice]

Fighting talk - if that aggression translates into speed I just might