Can we ban cyclists from rye lane?

[Blah Blah]

That response sums up perfectly how ridiculous your whole argument is Alice. Cyclists can cycle as fast as the speed limit allows. A cyclist riding at 20mphr (most ride at around 10-12 mphr) would be a potential athlete so the whole speed thing is a non argument.

[DulwichFox]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

Jeez, cylcists aren't even a coherent group in the first place - The vast majority are also car drivers.

So do they drive their cars the wrong way down one way streets.. ?

...Do they drive their cars on the pavement. ?

...Do they drive their cars through red lights. ?

No. Well why then do they do those things when on their bicycles . ?

Because they can get away with it and don't care a toss.

DulwichFox

[Blah Blah]

But the psychology is completely different. Children first learn to ride bikes on pavements, and continue to do so. Only after the age of 16 can a person be given a fine for riding on the pavement, by which time the lack of any feeling of illegality about pavements has long gone. No-one ever learns to drive a vehicle on pavements or going the wrong way on roads. So it's not hard to see the psychological difference in attitude.

[Nigello]

I thought you could be fined from 14 for cycling on the pavement? Bottom line - you can't legislate against selfishness so it will always happen.

[exdulwicher]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I thought you could be fined from 14 for cycling

> on the pavement? Bottom line - you can't legislate

> against selfishness so it will always happen.

Is it "selfish" though? Problem is, as mentioned above, children learn to ride on the pavement (ironically becasue the roads are so dangerous!). But there's a further problem now in that councils are specifically directing people to ride on the pavement! Here, have some shared use foot/cycle path. Ride up here!

These pictures say "look, come and ride on this footpath!"

Couple that with the fact that Police have been specifically told not to bother fining footpath riders unless they are actually being dangerous and is it any surprise that

a) some riders are so confused about where they should/shouldn't can/can't ride that they end up unintentionally making mistakes

b) some riders simply don't care in much the same way that a mobile-phone-touting motorist knows that the chances of being caught are almost zero

c) some riders DO care but they rationalise it in the same way that a speeding driver does. "oh it's only a few metres along here and I'll be careful" (compared to "oh it's only a few mph over the limit and everyone else is doing it too")

Rather than blaming "cyclists" (as a sort of sub-species) the real outrage should be directed at the council for squandering our taxpayers money on this kind of crap

[Jeremy]

I wouldn't blame a cyclist for nipping over a stretch of quiet pavement if they were 100% certain there were no pedestrians around. Or of course, to take emergency evasive action. But usually - yes, it is selfish.

Why defend cyclists' bad behaviour by saying "drivers break the rules too"? Nobody is defending dangerous driving... not an excuse.

[exdulwicher]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Why defend cyclists' bad behaviour by saying

> "drivers break the rules too"? Nobody is defending

> dangerous driving... not an excuse.

Because bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour.

You get big heavy metal boxes jumping lights, speeding and killing hundreds of people a year and "the rest" (cyclists) are going to take whatever measures necessary to protect themselves. Some do it with cameras and spend ages uploading footage to YouTube. Some do it by simply staying out of the way of all the big heavy dangerous things and riding on the pavement.

Most of it is simple self-preservation. There is never just one thing to be discussed, you have too look at the wider picture. Why are they riding on the pavement - whole mix of factors.

The cycle lanes are quite often painted there

The traffic is dangerous/scary

It's convenient

I'm not defending bad behaviour, simply pointing out that you can't just blame ONE aspect of it without considering WHY that behaviour is happening and putting in steps to correct it. Proper segregated cycle lanes that don't impinge on pavements would be a good start, you can hardly blame cyclists for using the infrastructure that has been provided for them!

[Jeremy]

Of course infrastructure and safety for cyclists is the thing which needs to be addressed.

I think you're doing your argument a disservice with the convenience/confusion angles, which I (and I would guess most people) cannot really sympathise with.

[DulwichFox]

It's reassuring to see young kids being trained in cycle proficiency at the junction of Whateley / Ulverscroft rd.

Needs to be more of it.

Some adults might benefit from a bit of cycle proficiency training.

Or an injection of common sense..

DulwichFox

[exdulwicher]

This is an interesting read on some of the bad infrastructure = bad behaviour correlations:

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/09/22/cut-the-crap/

It's reassuring to see young kids being trained in cycle proficiency at the junction of Whateley / Ulverscroft rd.

Needs to be more of it.

Some adults might benefit from a bit of cycle proficiency training.

Our wise and all-knowing Government cut all that. :-(

That said, some councils do still offer free cycle safety training, you do have to dig around on their websites a bit to find it though. Here's Southwark's:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200123/cycling/446/cycle_with_confidence

[DulwichFox]

I have seen cycle training on Ulverscroft from time to time.. Not aware if this is happening at other locations..

DulwichFox

[Blah Blah]

Exdulwicher makes some good points though.

Cyling on pavement when there are no pedestrians around doesn't harm anyone. Similarly, cycling through a red light in the middle of the night when there is no traffic around doesn't harm anyone either. Both are technically wrong/ illegal but cyclists are also affected by things, like weather or congestion, which will affect their behaviour sometimes.

Cycling on a pavement in a way that forces pedestrians to give way is a conscious act of danger but the vast majority of cyclists would never do this. This is also something I have never seen any cyclist do on Rye Lane either (apart from the shared cycle path at the north end). A cyclist on the road has every right to be there, cycling as fast as the speed limit and conditions allow, but then again, very few cyclists make anywhere near the speed limit.

So this is why the OPs question has no merit. Cyclists over 16 can be fined for riding on a pavement, so legislation already exists for this. Just becuse it is impossible to fine everyone that does it isn't a reason for banning every cyclist, any more than banning all drivers because the few that drive badly are never caught, would be a reasonable idea either.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

>

> Cycling on a pavement in a way that forces

> pedestrians to give way is a conscious act of

> danger but the vast majority of cyclists would

> never do this. This is also something I have never

> seen any cyclist do on Rye Lane either (apart from

> the shared cycle path at the north end). A cyclist

> on the road has every right to be there, cycling

> as fast as the speed limit and conditions allow,

> but then again, very few cyclists make anywhere

> near the speed limit.

>

Except for the odd huge guy swaying around the pavement

on a tiny bike.:)

[Blah Blah]

Yes, those men that just can't let go of their childhood BMX experience :D

[dirac]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Exdulwicher makes some good points though.

>

> Cyling on pavement when there are no pedestrians

> around doesn't harm anyone. Similarly, cycling

> through a red light in the middle of the night

> when there is no traffic around doesn't harm

> anyone either. Both are technically wrong/ illegal

> but cyclists are also affected by things, like

> weather or congestion, which will affect their

> behaviour sometimes.

>

Tend to agree with these, and will be honest in saying I do go through a red light if there are no cars or people about; and then I'm going real slow to not cause any problem. If there are people about I just alight, cross the junction like the rest of the pedestrians when the green man is on (not blocking or bumping anyone), and hop back on. But then I've had people shout at me for that too!

[Jeremy]

So if it's OK for cyclists to cautiously go over red lights on pedestrian crossings when nobody is about... it's OK for me to do the same in my car, yes?

[Blah Blah]

No-one is saying it is ok. What I'm trying to point out is that if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about. A driver would never need to feel like that. They have a warm and dry driving experience.

I too dirac have got off a bicycle and crossed a pedestrian green light and got on my cycle again at the other side. It's perfectly legal to do that and at busy junctions may be the safer way to cross too, esp if wanting to turn right.

[dirac]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> So if it's OK for cyclists to cautiously go over

> red lights on pedestrian crossings when nobody is

> about... it's OK for me to do the same in my car,

> yes?

In Paris, Brussels, many cities in Germany and some in America cyclists are allowed to do this. I'm not saying that it justifies what people do in London, especially at busier roads where there are cars and pedestrians everywhere. But more frustrated that it's even viewed as a crime and something to 'shake a fist at' on the small junctions where no harm is caused is caution is used.

[civilservant]

traffic rules in America or on the Continent are not more sensible than UK ones - in France and Belgium they still use priorite a droite while acknowledging that it's archaic and dangerous; in the US they eschew roundabouts in favour of the totally bonkers four-way stop

> if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about

is that really ok?

what about the pedestrian crossing the road in the same weather who has to additionally keep an eye out for hurtling cyclists? in conditions of poor visibility (or at any other time even) all that anyone can hope for is that EVERYONE is obeying the same set of rules of the road

cyclists benefit from being able to switch between being road traffic and pedestrians; if they're on the road, they obey the same rules as other road traffic; if they're on the pavement they get off and wheel their bike. simples, yes?

btw, i don't drive - i walk or use public transport - so accusations of anti-cyclist hypocrisy don't wash with me

[Blah Blah]

But cyclists don't hurtle through red lights civilservant - that would just be asking for an accident. Most light hoppers stop or slow to see if the way is clear and then continue. So yes, if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain and there's no traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, there is no harm done in crossing a red light. You might not like it and it may not be legal, but to suggest anyone doing that is a hurtling cyclist with no awareness of what is happening ahead of him is bonkers.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> So if it's OK for cyclists to cautiously go over

> red lights on pedestrian crossings when nobody is

> about... it's OK for me to do the same in my car,

> yes?

It's not 'OK' for anyone to break the rules, but at the same time, we cannot entirely ignore context. There is a difference between a one and a half ton car jumping a red light, without slowing, in rush hour traffic say, and a bike cautiously and slowly crossing a quiet street (and vice versa). That's not to say either are strictly 'right', but clearly there is a massive difference in terms of degree of recklessness.

I don't generally see lot's a accidents caused by dangerous cycling and the statistics suggest that it is not common place either. Fundamentally, the capacity for a light weight bike and a 1 and a half ton car to cause carnage are not the same.

So whilst I don't condone cyclists breaking the rules anymore than I would anyone else - what is clear is that bikes are a relatively benign form of transport. They do, despite this however, seem to come in for a disproportionate amount of criticism.

[Nigello]

When one section of road users go through a red, it eventually lets other people think that it may be OK for them to do the same. I have aeen plenty of motor vehicles run a red, even coaches and buses and I think that the drivers/riders ma be thinking "well, that's what everyone is doing". A moped at Lambeth North did just that yesterday morning - blatantly ignoring a red, perhaps thinking becaause he was on two-wheels he was somehow "allowed" to break the law - and endganger life.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh come on. I see cars jump red lights to, but to suggest it's because of cyclists is really jumping the shark.

['bout now]

"So if it's OK for cyclists to cautiously go over red lights on pedestrian crossings when nobody is about... it's OK for me to do the same in my car, yes?"

Apparently so, yes.

From the Sydenham hill speed limit thread, by you.

"20mph is a ridiculous limit for a wide road like Sydenham Hill - not only unnecessarily low, but will inevitably result in overtaking (and therefore excessive speeding). I fully intend to continue to drive 30ish along it and slow down for any cameras. Thanks for the update".

[civilservant]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Oh come on. I see cars jump red lights to, but to

> suggest it's because of cyclists is really jumping

> the shark.

perhaps so (but I think you mean 'jumping to conclusions' - shark-jumping is something else entirely) but the basic problem is the mindset that, when in a car, behaves like a selfish arse, and when on a bike, continues to do so.

special pleading, e.g. for cold wet cyclists, just doesn't cut it.

of course there are pedestrian arses too e.g. wandering along with earphones in, getting in the way of well-behaved cars and bikes.

but that, Best Beloved, is another thread.