Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Chick Pea - as a cyclist, you can't just stop every time you cycle past (on the road) a pedestrian on the basis that they may may walk out in front of you. Sometimes you get a feel that they might, if they're on their mobile most commonly, and you would seek to exercise extra caution but it's not that easy to be able to predict who is suddenly going to walk out in front of you with no warning or without looking. Are you saying we should ring our bells at every pedestrian who is on the pavement just in case?

Round and round, isn't anyone getting dizzy yet?


By the way to whoever ssid that bikes are traffic, yes they are, but traffic and vehicles are two different things. Many things can make up traffic, vehicles are something specific.


There was an article (here or on one of the other cycle bashing threads) that showed Japan defines cyclists at part vehicle part pedestrian. It is clear that cyclists are not equivalent to motorised vehicles and that should be recognised by changes in the law.

I know, from extremely painful experience, that the holier than thou attitude of cyclists after they've hit you, on the pavement, makes it all the worse. I was hit, very badly, by a guy on a bike a few years ago by Sloane square. His reaction to my lying, bloodied, on the pavement? "Look where you'r fucking going, cunt!", as he cycled off.


That's the f-word followed by the c-word, by the way.

This debate should really be about responsible and considerate road users versus inconsiderate and irresponsible road users. The mode of transport they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a good driver.


Some folks just seem to think that the world revolves around them and you should bloody well get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and we just go round and round in circles.


In relation to this thread I would argue that the vast number of 'bad' motorists that fly through the zebra crossing without stopping on East Dulwich Grove opposite the church (if you've never used it, just try and see what I mean) both outnumber and are far more dangerous than the 'bad' cyclists riding on the pavements on our local streets but my opinion is that they're probably the same kind of people and we should be standing up to all of them.

I am fascinated by idiotic behaviour on the roads. From drivers who think their "right" to be there and behave any way they like trumps a cyclist's or pedestrian's right to safety, from cyclists who seem convinced that the rules of the road don't apply to them, forcing those crossing on a green man to dodge them as they fly through, and from pedestrians who seem too lazy to check the road before stepping out, despite the extreme possible risk to them from this stupidity. We all make mistakes, have the odd lapse in concentration, but I don't think that's the only explanation. Whenever someone steps out into the road gormlessly and forces me to brake, I want to dismount and go ask them precisely what their thought processes were and what went wrong. (I don't of course, maybe one day I'll do that all day and then write up the results...)


Most of this, laws and morals aside, is just about common courtesy, manners, and having a bit of empathy for our fellow travellers of all kinds. Why do some people find that so hard? It's NOT war out there, we're all just people trying to get somewhere. Like, chill out...

Having recently moved to London I must say the aggressive behaviour on the roads is astonishing. I've been a driver and cyclist for a number of years in rural areas and on the whole all road users are polite and patient.

I can't cycle on main roads around here, it terrifies me. I see no problem in cycling on the pavement as long as I'm courteous and careful and avoid hitting people where possible.

pablopuncheur Wrote:

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

> This debate should really be about responsible and

> considerate road users versus inconsiderate and

> irresponsible road users. The mode of transport

> they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more

> in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a

> good driver.

>

> Some folks just seem to think that the world

> revolves around them and you should bloody well

> get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian,

> cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates

> always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and

> we just go round and round in circles.

>

> In relation to this thread I would argue that the

> vast number of 'bad' motorists that fly through

> the zebra crossing without stopping on East

> Dulwich Grove opposite the church (if you've never

> used it, just try and see what I mean) both

> outnumber and are far more dangerous than the

> 'bad' cyclists riding on the pavements on our

> local streets but my opinion is that they're

> probably the same kind of people and we should be

> standing up to all of them.



Totally agree.


We all need to use these spaces and with an increase in cycling there needs to be made safe space for them to get from A to B in addition to safe spaces for other users of our public space, which clearly includes pedestrians, joggers, parents etc and if course motorists.


Currently motorists are given priority over all other users to the detriment of others. Many motorists die in collisions with other motorists so looking at improving safety for all is a no-brainer.


In response to those who say that there are many aggressive cyclists, yes that's true. I'm of the opinion though that the current arrangement with a disproportionate amount of our public space being given to motorists, where aggressive motorists rule the roost, has a knock on effect on cyclists and pedestrians alike.


Tackle the aggressive dominant motorists, share the space more equitably and the evidence shows that all users become more considerate.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Unlike some other posters, I will not resort to

> abuse, but the position is quite simple. Cycling

> on the pavement is illegal, in the same way that

> smoking on a train is illegal. Full stop - or

> period (if you're American).



The laws date back to the 1800's where cyclists were defined as vehicles. Cars were slow and the majority of traffic on roads was horse drawn. The law is not fit for purpose and as with many other outdated, inadequate laws, needs an overhaul.

Lady D are you making a case being for pavement cycling? Of course if all cyclists were considerate and slow like vic flange for example, then perhaps there could be room for manouvre but they are not.


The fact that bikes have changed since 1800, you don't see many riders on Penny-farthings, and reach much faster speeds makes the current legislation outlawing pavement cycling even more pertinent - don't you agree?

I'm talking about taking some of the space from motorists and sharing space with pedestrians where that's not possible. We should look at the developments in shared space with motorists that include removing traffic lighs which assist traffic flow but giving some priority to pedestrians and cyclists.


There is plenty of evidence to show that these measures have a huge impact on pedestrian, cyclist and motorist behaviour.


Re the laws, they clearly work for no-one, pedestrians or cyclists, so clearly a review is needed. Also laws are man made and not set in stone. There are hundreds of changes in law over any Parliametary term. There is no reason why this should remain the law in the future as it currently suits no-one.

If anything it's pedestrians who are at fault most of the time. The number of times I've been sworn at and threatened after clipping people who weren't looking where they were going, eyes glued to their mobile phones, oblivious to the world.

I'm not a small bloke. I wear hi viz gear. If they were paying a bit more attention rather than playing Angry Birds it wouldn't have been a problem.

For all the people who are vehemently against cycling on the pavement, even where cycling on the road is life threatening, I would be really interested in you answering the following questions:


Do you think an increase in cycling is a good thing?


If not, why not?


If yes, do you think the current arrangements for the rise is cycling are adequate?


If not, what changes would you suggest?

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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


> Do you think an increase in cycling is a good

> thing?

>

> If not, why not?

>

> If yes, do you think the current arrangements for

> the rise is cycling are adequate?

>

> If not, what changes would you suggest?



Yes, n/a, no, more cycle paths, and more responsibility/less selfishness taken on by cyclists...

Many of the current batch of cycle paths are ill thought out and often actually put cyclists in more danger than if they cycled amongst the main traffic.


How would you design your cycle paths to combat this and would you not consider shared pedestrian space on very dangerous or very narrow roads?

I don't know, I'm not a cyclist, but I'd presume a good place to start would be the cyclists. And no, it's obvious to a blind man that shared space doesn't work. But one thing is for certain, cyclists seem to think that because they feel threatened by motorists, it's Ok to pass that threat onto pedestrians. That has to stop.

You cannot decide which laws that you can obey and those that you can disobey. It's illegal to cycle on the pavement and it's illegal to deposit rubbish on the pavement. You can't say that it's terrible to dump rubbish and that people who do so should be punished, while it's OK to cycle on the pavement.


Arguing that pavement cycling is acceptable because of the lack of cycle lanes is comparable to arguing that rubbish dumping is acceptable because there aren't enough rubbish bins.

Are you seriously trying to equate an anti-social activity that although unpleasant, causes no physical harm to anyone, with an activity that helps to prevent a person's possible death or serious injury? Sorry but that's a stupid comparison and in no way analogous.


Suffragettes, anti-slavery, Greenham Common, Heathrow 3rd runway protesters all broke the law to highlight things that needed changing. Saying all laws are equal in importance is completely rediculous.


Did you know that it was perfectly legal to rape your wife, even if you were estranged until 1996? Expecting others to have respect for laws that are deeply flawed is the mindset of a follower with no imagination or drive to fight for change.


I do not respect such laws and will fight in whatever avenue is open to me, to have these laws changed. I will also continue to break the law by cycling on the pavement when I believe my life may be in danger on roads that are designed without any thought of cyclists safety.


In 25 years of cycling in London, including on pavements, I have never hit a pedestrian in the pavement. I have however been hit by motorists and pedestrians on the road.


Preventing my death or serious injury is more important to me than me than blindly following a law I have no respect for.

'I will also continue to break the law by cycling on the pavement when I believe my life may be in danger on roads that are designed without any thought of cyclists safety.'


Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope is that you get hit with enough on the spot fines to deter you.

Voyageur Wrote:

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

> 'I will also continue to break the law by cycling

> on the pavement when I believe my life may be in

> danger on roads that are designed without any

> thought of cyclists safety.'

>

> Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's

> akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope is

> that you get hit with enough on the spot fines to

> deter you.


Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle on the pavements but only when the pavement is pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I am biased but that's based on expereince.


Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured green with a white line that demarks pedestrian and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit.


It's not all black and white.


Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating pavement cycling just accepting that it is not always dangerous!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...