Cyclists taking over paths!!

[Rockets]

I see the "recently signed-up one-time posters" are making a comeback.....

[ilo]

Oooh apologies. Please let me know how many posts I need in order to have an opinion on this.

It absolutely has relevance. Cycling on pavements can be annoying, but the level of risk is far, far smaller than people driving tanks around a city - as that incident in Wimbledon shows.

[first mate]

You have stated your opinion. Others disagree about that one instant. 

Back to the thread, if tots are cycling on the pavement, which I understand, is it better for parents to dismount and accompany them while they are on pavements with pedestrians etc.. Obviously by this I mean pavemnets that do not have dedicated cycleways.

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, ilo said:

Oooh apologies. Please let me know how many posts I need in order to have an opinion on this.

It absolutely has relevance. Cycling on pavements can be annoying, but the level of risk is far, far smaller than people driving tanks around a city - as that incident in Wimbledon shows.

Apology accepted - opinions on a wide range of subjects are positively encouraged on the forum - welcome, we look forward to your continued contribution.

 

Meanwhile another set of absolute classics - the near miss close pass to the left of the bloke filming by the full kit wally at 3.28 is one of the best ever!

 

 

 

 

 

[OutOfFocus]

Cycling on pavements is a case of "it doesn't annoy anyone else" except cyclists (udiot cycle users) who do this dont realise it DOES annoy other people. I once had a pocket on my coat ripped by a bike that was closer to me than the idiot realised.

 

 

[Brian up the hill]

Second video 5;01, doesn’t he jump the lights, having just criticised another cyclist for stopping on the crossing? Physician heal thyself!

[malumbu]

On 18/07/2023 at 10:14, ilo said:

Oooh apologies. Please let me know how many posts I need in order to have an opinion on this.

It absolutely has relevance. Cycling on pavements can be annoying, but the level of risk is far, far smaller than people driving tanks around a city - as that incident in Wimbledon shows.

Don't worry.  Rocks bark is much worse than his/her bite.  I always check closely when cycling or driving  on the pavement to check that Rocks is not around.

[first mate]

On 18/07/2023 at 10:14, ilo said:

Oooh apologies. Please let me know how many posts I need in order to have an opinion on this.

It absolutely has relevance. Cycling on pavements can be annoying, but the level of risk is far, far smaller than people driving tanks around a city - as that incident in Wimbledon shows.

Right, we are clear, you think cycling on pavements is a great idea and feel there are few hazards involved other than being a bit "annoying". Others disagree.

One view is as cycling increases, more people take risks in the way they cycle ( see Rocket's post re Barbyonabike) and that includes careless cycling on pavements, not to mention littering and dumping of hire bikes. Simply trying to divert the thread, as you seem to be doing, is not addressing an issue that is starting to surface.

One small thought, as already mentioned, should adult cyclists accompanying small children cycling on the pavements, always dismount and walk with them?

Edited July 19, 2023 by first mate

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Don't worry.  Rocks bark is much worse than his/her bite.  I always check closely when cycling or driving  on the pavement to check that Rocks is not around.

Malumbu  - I pride myself on being both a courteous and thoughtful cyclist and driver and I just wish everyone else took the same approach.

The whole cars kill more people than bikes narrative is just a distraction technique - no-one wants to be hit by a car or a cyclist and if you wander around Dulwich you are far more likely to be hit by a bike than a car nowadays. Vans and HGVs are, by far (according to PACTS), the most dangerous mode of transport per mile travelled to other road users but no-one seems to focus too much on that do they?

[DuncanW]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Malumbu  - I pride myself on being both a courteous and thoughtful cyclist and driver and I just wish everyone else took the same approach.

The whole cars kill more people than bikes narrative is just a distraction technique - no-one wants to be hit by a car or a cyclist and if you wander around Dulwich you are far more likely to be hit by a bike than a car nowadays. Vans and HGVs are, by far (according to PACTS), the most dangerous mode of transport per mile travelled to other road users but no-one seems to focus too much on that do they?

The whole cars kill more people than bikes narrative is just a distraction technique

No it isn't. It's a cold, hard and measurable fact. Sitting beneath the hard measurability of that stat lies a hugely greater number of people whose lives are changed forever due to injuries sustained from being hit by motor vehicles.

no-one wants to be hit by a car or a cyclist

Of course not, but that does not confer a likely similarity of outcome

you are far more likely to be hit by a bike than a car nowadays

Source?

Vans and HGVs are, by far (according to PACTS), the most dangerous mode of transport per mile travelled to other road users but no-one seems to focus too much on that do they?

Yes, of course they are - but other than dweebs who ride around filming and publishing clips of people who have skipped across the lights after the pedestrians on their way to Dulwich park etc, there absolutely is a focus on reducing collisions with these vehicles - speak to any haulage contractor and they will tell you that.

 

[Rockets]

But DuncanW it is a clear distraction strategy designed to take focus away from the increasing problem of bad cycling that no-one in the cycling community seems to want to acknowledge. We hear it all the time on any threads that talk about bad cycling  "well cars kill more people than cyclists" - that is not a defence when we are discussing the increasing amount of bad cycling that is endangering pedestrians. People have been killed, or sustained life changing injuries, by bad cycling - that also is a cold, hard and measurable fact. And the more bad cycling there is the more the risk increases and it is now a real problem.

Look at this thread - it covers bad cycling and new posters join (always be sceptical of new first time posters on the forum) to use the tragic incident in Wimbledon as some sort of "gotcha" - when clearly they had no clue as to what may have caused that. It's the same tactic as that Dulwich Roads twitter account that tries to blame every accident on speeding when often no speeding was involved - trying desperately to use the misfortune of others to further their personal agenda.

The source for my comment of more likely to be hit by a bike than car is based on nothing more than personal experience, and I suspect the personal experience of anyone who actually wanders around Dulwich. You cannot tell me you have walked around Dulwich without having some sort of close encounter with a badly ridden bike?

Of course you know there are "dweebs" who also cycle around filming indiscretions of drivers, purposely and gleefully taking some sadistic pleasure in getting them fined - some of the most prominent cycle campaigners like Jeremy Vine retweet the videos heralding the victories of their toils? The "dweeb" who posts the bad cycling is clearly a cyclist who is sick of the way other cyclists are riding - he posts a similar video every couple of weeks and in them it is often the same people over and over again (especially at the Dulwich library junction) so these aren't one-off indiscretions.

I suppose what would be refreshing if one, just one, of the cycle lobby who post here could agree there is a problem in the Dulwich area right now with bad cycling - but no, it never happens and never will happen, because like so many things about the pro-active travel groups they are more than happy to turn a blind eye to their own group's indiscretions and dismiss it.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Rockets

[ilo]

20 hours ago, Rockets said:

use the tragic incident in Wimbledon as some sort of "gotcha" - when clearly they had no clue as to what may have caused that.

That's exactly the point. No one here knows what caused that accident. All we know is the result of accident has resulted in a loss of life. This is because the vehicle that was being used was wholly unsuitable, dangerous and has a huge capacity for causing harm. The amount of damage that someone on a bicycle would never be able to cause - whether they are on the pavement or not.

[first mate]

How do you know the vehicle being used was wholly unsuitable? Unless you have the inside track on the owner's life you cannot possibly know that. It is simply your opinion based on assumptions.

[ilo]

1 minute ago, first mate said:

How do you know the vehicle being used was wholly unsuitable? Unless you have the inside track on the owner's life you cannot possibly know that. It is simply your opinion based on assumptions.

A 3 tonne private vehicle on a suburban street is never suitable. That shouldn't be controversial.

[Rockets]

41 minutes ago, ilo said:

The amount of damage that someone on a bicycle would never be able to cause - whether they are on the pavement or not.

You know cyclists have killed people too right? https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-07-14/cyclist-who-rode-on-pavement-jailed-for-fatal-collision-with-pedestrian and let's be honest that's what we are talking about on this thread to prevent that from happening.

 

Do you think HGVs and vans are suitable for suburban streets  - they kill more people than any other road user? 8 people were killed by buses last year - are they suitable?

 

Every death is one too many but the way you are using this to try and make a point to distract attention away from the topic is pathetic.

 

 

[Hen123]

There is nothing pathetic about pointing out other equivalent risks and bad behaviour on the roads and pavements and pointing out there are other far bigger threats to injury out there. If incredibly rare accidents are legitimate grounds for complaint - then I ask you what are we going to do about the pedestrians killing cyclists?  
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/02/pedestrian-jailed-manslaughter-cyclist-fall-car-huntingdon

Edited July 20, 2023 by Hen123

[Bic Basher]

Until the cycling groups get their head out of their backsides, they'll continue to act in a manner where they can get away with being as obnioxious with their use of the road and pavements as some motor vehicle drivers are while they continue to have the backing of the council. (Even if Rose is no longer directly responsble)

 

 

[OutOfFocus]

On 07/07/2023 at 00:19, sweetgirl said:

I personally feel you need a license of some sort to cycle on highways……. As well as insurance!

I am coming to that view. In particular for delivery riders.  And delivery riders on mopeds should have a full licence.

[Penguin68]

Cycling, we know, can be dangerous, with poor road conditions (pot holes, ice in winter, standing water during downpours) and (quite often) poor driver behaviour by other road users (particularly large lorries and artics, in my experience). Which is why it astonishes me that some cyclists put themselves at even greater risk by poor road usage themselves (poor or non existent lighting, no signalling, no safety clothing,  inappropriate use of pavements, ignoring traffic signals etc.) 

I was taught (when both driving and cycling) that you should (a) proceed defensively - assume all other road users are idiots and  act as if they are out to get you (b) make sure that other road users were clear about your intentions and (c) treat other road users (including pedestrians crossing roads) with courtesy . It is the blithe assumption of (some) cyclists that they are invulnerable - and that if they aren't it's somebody else's fault - that annoys me. And their frequent (again only some cyclists) lack of courtesy to other road users.

Schools used to sponsor (some may still do) cycling proficiency courses - maybe parents on this board may wish to encourage the schools their children go to to take this up, if they don't. Proper and safe road practices, properly taught, would be of huge benefit, in my view anyway to road safety locally. There are some things in the non-academic curriculum which could well take a second place to safe road usage.

[malumbu]

That's quite sad to assume all other road users are idiots.  I see it as we all share the road and therefore we all cooperate.  A more positive message from government would help rather than the manufactured road wars that many here seem to join in with.  Most road users are decent, virtually all could do with training.  I'm discussing that in another thread.

[Rockets]

Malumbu, I agree and if everyone who uses the road treated others with courtesy and respect then we would not have a problem.

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

That's quite sad to assume all other road users are idiots. 

I have been an active road user (initially cycle) since 1958, but only passed my test in spring of 1967. In that time the number of idiots on the road has increased, as of course have the number of road users. I would estimate that by now only 10% of road users (of all types) are idiots - but of course I don't know which 10%. So driving as if the number is 100% allows me to act cautiously and anticipate, so much as I can, idiocies. The assumption of idiocy, when you are driving, ensures continued caution. It makes me treat other road users with care.

Amended to replace 'drivers' with 'other road users' in final sentence. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Penguin68

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Malumbu, I agree and if everyone who uses the road treated others with courtesy and respect then we would not have a problem.

There have been decades of ad-hoc "share with care" and "respect others" and "pass wide" campaigns. Be Safe, Be Seen rolls around every October/November time and all of them have the same "we must all be equal" trend to them.

None of them have ever worked. Not one has ever lead to a statistically significant downward trend in incidents (deaths on the road have gone down, primarily because cars are safer for the drivers now with airbags, crumple zones etc so in single vehicle collisions, the driver usually escapes with nothing more than bruises whereas in the 70's/80's, they'd have an engine block embedded in them). They are however more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists.

But people (and note I'm saying PEOPLE, not "drivers" or "cyclists" or "pedestrians") cannot be trusted to behave that way. There will always be pedestrians "just nipping across the road" or walking all over the place, faces buried in their phones. There will always be cyclists jumping lights, there will always be drivers using phones, jumping lights, speeding.

You need to design that out. Put in proper infrastructure and cyclist won't ride on pavements, they'll use the proper cycle path. Put in average speed cameras and drivers won't speed. It needs enforcement and design to manage it because saying "do you mind awfully not doing that?" never works. Try that to a parent parked half on the pavement, half on double yellows outside JAGS one morning, see where "asking nicely" gets you. If you don't want that to happen it needs a School Street or bollards or police patrols actually booking the drivers.

Have proper enforcement on the roads, catching RLJing cyclists and motorists, towing badly parked cars, removing discarded hire bikes etc and then you'll get behaviour change. Asking nicely doesn't do it.

[ilo]

Quote

Do you think HGVs and vans are suitable for suburban streets  - they kill more people than any other road user? 8 people were killed by buses last year - are they suitable?

This is why I said *private* vehicles. Also, no idea where you get your stats from, in 2020, HGVs accounted for 140 deaths. Cars, 559, bicycles, 5. It's also why HGVs are held to significantly higher safety standards and licensing requirements than other vehicles - because the authorities recognise that the larger the vehicle the greater the risk.

Quote

Every death is one too many

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

Quote

distract attention away from the topic is pathetic.

Charming. The good people of East Dulwich are so lucky to have a gatekeeper such as yourself.

 

[Rockets]

By miles travelled HGV and vans are by far the highest killers on our roads - although your table may put that into question.

Are the stats you quote deaths caused by? Then that 5 for cyclists is not good news for your argument and why people are so concerned about people cycling on paths.

 

Everything else you quote is a motorised vehicle and if motorcycles kill 10 people and cycling 5 then the death per mile travelled stat will likely look very bad for cycling and may actually put it on a par with HGVs and vans.

 

Not trying to be a gatekeeper of anything - just trying to highlight your brazen attempt to throw in a "yeah but..." distraction on a thread about cycling on paths....but thanks for your update because it actually puts into laser focus the need for people to stop cycling on paths.