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/ 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

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!

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

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.

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). 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).

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.

What rahrahrah said ^^. Thing is, anyone coming from East Dulwich is already going to be on Bellenden Road / Lyndhurst Way. Anyone coming from Peckham Rye / Nunhead is not going to add to their journey by going all the way across to Lyndhurst and then back. That's simple desire lines, people will always take the quickest option. Can't really go further east as that's the one way system around A2215 / Copeland Road / Consort Road which is a traffic nightmare so they're not going to do that. Particularly as the cycle route continues directly opposite Rye Lane by going in front of the library (again on a shared foot/cycle path) Rye Lane has been set up with shared use pedestrian / cycle paths by the council so they're not going to rip the whole lot out and ban bikes because you've seen one incident. You might be able to press them for better signage, a redesign or (about the best you'll get) an agreement to monitor it. A suggestion to the council of banning bikes will be met with the contempt it deserves. And regarding this How do you know where they live or shop? You could say the same about bus passengers - being carted through the centre by a big smelly polluting bus and none of them are shopping there!

In Greater London, in 2013: 65 pedestrians were killed and 773 seriously injured by motor vehicles 0 pedestrians were killed and 227 injured by pedal cycles Source: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2013.pdf I think if you want to talk about banning anything, it should be motor vehicles... That said, the above statistics don't apportion blame so I suppose it's entirely possible that there were 1065 lemming pedestrians around the place. It's far more likely that the section of shared use cycle path / pavement there is just not fit for purpose or not clearly signed. I'm not familiar with that part of town and generally refuse to use shared use stuff anyway, I'd far rather use the road!

Note as well that Friends of the Gallery can take 1 guest each time - unlimited visits and there's a little taped off access point down the side of the main queue. It's an excellent exhibition, well worth a visit.

More the threat of punishment this one. I was at Alleyn's in the 90's. Occasionally we used to get kids from William Penn (as it was then) invading the playing fields. This happened one Thursday which was CCF day and the School Serjeant, fed up with these uninvited visits, grabbed 4 sixth-form army cadets all in their combat jackets and boots, issued them with an SA80 each from the school armoury and marched out across the playing fields towards them. Unsurprisingly, the visitors decided they no longer wanted to be on site and legged it but the Serjeant simply yelled "YOU BOYS - STOP RIGHT THERE!" Maybe it was the fear of getting shot but they stopped, he summoned them over and, surrounded by his armed guards, delivered the mother of all bollockings to them. We never had any problems with William Penn after that!