To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[BrandNewGuy]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > henryb Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > In my view driving a car in the busy,

> polluted

> > > city is more anti-social than cycling on the

> > > pavement.

> >

> > Uh? So what you're saying is, "Here's a worse

> > thing than the bad thing you mentioned, so it

> > makes your bad thing less bad." Stabbing people

> is

> > worse than spitting at them, too.

>

>

> And then Brandnewguy decides to ramp it up by

> bringing in stabbing and spitting at someone.

I didn't ramp it up, I made IMHO a perfectly logical point that referring to a worse deed doesn't affect the rightness or wrongness of the original deed. The stabbing and spitting thing was an analogy. Do you know what one of those is?

[showboat]

monkeylite Wrote:

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

> I don't see generalisation against cyclists in

> this thread. Only holiar than thou attitude by

> militant cyclists who somehow takes criticism of

> *some* cyclists as a general attack. I am a

> cyclist myself and I feel offended by the way

> militant cyclists on EDF like to deflect every

> single blame to other road users.

Totally agree.

As I said, I don't have a car (or even a licence) and I do some cycling and am a fervent believer in an integrated public transport network that allows for wide and safe use of bicycles BUT...

Just as cars need to recognise that they share the road with cyclists, cyclists need to recognise that they have to share any pavement they use with pedestrians, and I'd go further in saying that I believe pedestrians take priority on the pavement, so cyclists should remember that (and yes, pedestrians need to remember that responsibly ridden bicycles are allowed on pavements).

Lady Deliah, every time you dig in and refuse to recognise that any cyclist anywhere could possibly be wrong about anything you undermine the very argument you're trying to make. I get that you're passionate and that's great - but tell me, what should be done about a cyclist who comes whistling down the pavement during morning rush hour through a crowd of people at a bus stop in Honor Oak nearly hitting a number of us, and not for the first time, as I've witnessed recently (an adult wearing no helmet or reflective gear, not announcing himself, just racing on through)?

Despite the fact that cars are of course more dangerous, more polluting and often handled more recklessly (no one's arguing that, at least not me), irresponsible cyclists still exist. When are you going to wake up and at least acknowledge that fact?

Stop behaving like just because you're on a bike anything you do is permissible.

[monkeylite]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>

> Post 3, too many arrogant, badly behaved cyclists

> around these days.

>

> Negative general cyclist comment based on nothing

> but this poster's prejudice.

And negative general (anyone but cyclists) comments aren't prejudiced?

[edcam]

Lady Delilah's inability to accept that some (not all) cyclists deserve criticism means we can only conclude that she has problems understanding some fairly straightforward and unambiguous postings or that she believes antisocial cycling is acceptable. At no point has anybody suggested that these criticisms are aimed at ALL cyclists, as that would be unfair and inaccurate.

As showboat says, she rather undermines her own argument with her stance.

[katanita]

What showboat and monkeylite said. So fed up of the behaviour of a really disappointingly high proportion of other cyclists making life more difficult for me, whether running red lights (every day on my commute, at almost every bloody junction, and frequently when pedestrians are trying to cross), cycling the wrong way down one way roads rather than take a slightly longer way round, and by defending said bad behaviour on the tedious never-ending forum pages and comment pieces on cycling that go round and round and .... I'm not even sure why I'm contributing to it except that I feel like a rant now, pointless as it will be.

I've been cycling for a long time in London, and it really isn't that difficult to stick to the rules. If a junction or a road isn't safe to be cycling on, take a different one, or get off and walk it round. If you really feel you have to get up on the pavement briefly, only ever do this where there aren't pedestrians, and recognise that your behaviour will probably piss people off, so don't do it unless you absolutely have to and be courteous and don't make people nervous that you're going hit them. I don't care if it's legal, riding fast down pavements with people walking on it is intensely annoying to about 95% of the population, whether you like it or not, and risks causing an accident. It shows a lack of consideration, which makes people think you're probably an arsehole, and, given human nature, makes them think that other cyclists might well be arseholes too. So thanks for that.

No, the taxi driver giving me abuse for a legitimate move that inconveniences him may not be in the right, but I bet he's partly just venting frustration at all the other cyclists who he's seen behaving like jerks in the past and defending their behaviour by telling him that he's in the wrong for driving in the first place. Way to make friends and influence people there. It's totally counter productive, we need major changes to cycling infrastructure, more investment, and better awareness from all road users. That needs public support, and this nonsense doesn't help a bit, it completely undermines efforts being made by people like the London Cycling Campaign etc.

Anyway, I look forward to this thread reaching 10 pages by tomorrow. I don't know why I do this to myself :P

[Zebedee Tring]

Lady Delilah, you omitted to mention the first sentence of my post, namely "People like that give well behaved cyclists a bad name", from which it is clear that I am not prejudiced against all cyclists. However, I am totally pissed off with the arrogant behaviour of a large number of cyclists these days, which to my mind is a lot worse than say, 15 years ago.

While we're on the subject, I'm getting increasingly fed with having young children on kiddie cycles nearly crash into me when I'm walking on the pavement.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I blame the skateboarders

[Louisa]

Yummies with over the top kiddy cyclists bombing on ahead of them on the pavement nearly knocking innocent elderly or disabled folk off their feet annoy the hell out of me too.

Louisa.

[pablopuncheur]

A considerate driver has more in common with a considerate cyclist than they do with an inconsiderate driver. The key to the debate is not about mode of transport, it's about everybody trying to be a bit more respectful of the the people around them regardless of whether you're on a bike, in a car or on foot.

We're all trying to get somewhere, let's try and make the journey more pleasant for everyone.

[Otta]

Well said, shame certain peopke are absolutely incapable of processing that.

[El Pibe]

...still crying...

[Earl Aelfheah]

None of this would be a problem if we had a Waitrose

[northlondoner]

katanita Wrote:

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

> What showboat and monkeylite said. So fed up of

> the behaviour of a really disappointingly high

> proportion of other cyclists making life more

> difficult for me, whether running red lights

> (every day on my commute, at almost every bloody

> junction, and frequently when pedestrians are

> trying to cross), cycling the wrong way down one

> way roads rather than take a slightly longer way

> round, and by defending said bad behaviour on the

> tedious never-ending forum pages and comment

> pieces on cycling that go round and round and ....

> I'm not even sure why I'm contributing to it

> except that I feel like a rant now, pointless as

> it will be.

>

> I've been cycling for a long time in London, and

> it really isn't that difficult to stick to the

> rules. If a junction or a road isn't safe to be

> cycling on, take a different one, or get off and

> walk it round. If you really feel you have to get

> up on the pavement briefly, only ever do this

> where there aren't pedestrians, and recognise that

> your behaviour will probably piss people off, so

> don't do it unless you absolutely have to and be

> courteous and don't make people nervous that

> you're going hit them. I don't care if it's legal,

> riding fast down pavements with people walking on

> it is intensely annoying to about 95% of the

> population, whether you like it or not, and risks

> causing an accident. It shows a lack of

> consideration, which makes people think you're

> probably an arsehole, and, given human nature,

> makes them think that other cyclists might well be

> arseholes too. So thanks for that.

>

> No, the taxi driver giving me abuse for a

> legitimate move that inconveniences him may not be

> in the right, but I bet he's partly just venting

> frustration at all the other cyclists who he's

> seen behaving like jerks in the past and defending

> their behaviour by telling him that he's in the

> wrong for driving in the first place. Way to make

> friends and influence people there. It's totally

> counter productive, we need major changes to

> cycling infrastructure, more investment, and

> better awareness from all road users. That needs

> public support, and this nonsense doesn't help a

> bit, it completely undermines efforts being made

> by people like the London Cycling Campaign etc.

>

> Anyway, I look forward to this thread reaching 10

> pages by tomorrow. I don't know why I do this to

> myself :P

Top post. Impossible to fault. Yet what's that high pitch whining sound I hear on the wind .....oh yes that will be the Usuals getting ready for the usual onslaught ...HenryB, Lady D (who speaks a greet

deal of sense on other topics) ..the floor is yours ....

[aquarius moon]

northlondoner Wrote:

> Top post. Impossible to fault. Yet what's that

> high pitch whining sound I hear on the wind

> .....oh yes that will be the Usuals getting ready

> for the usual onslaught ...HenryB, Lady D (who

> speaks a greet

> deal of sense on other topics) ..the floor is

> yours ....

It's Valentine's night!

I'm sure they both have better things to do than continue an argument on here that nobody is ever going to win.

[Otta]

Agree that Katanita's post is spot on.

[ruffers]

And me. It's a shame the cyclists who shout loudest aren't the ones like that.

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> ----

> > Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are per mile travelled - similarly lethal to

> > pedestrians' figures again, henryb?

> >

> > So you can put that little faux-halo away.

>

>

> I couldn't be *rsed to do this at the time on the original thread but now you're persisting with

> that ridiculous 'statistic'...

[snipped the calcs]

> If you look at the two calculations, it clearly shows that on roads where there are actually likely to be

> any pedestrians, cars are almost twice as dangerous. In general, things don't tend to pose a danger to you

> when they're nowhere near you... Even with your loophole allowance which allows cars to rack up almost

> 200billion miles worth of relatively pedestrian free roads (of which cyclists only used 0.6billion miles),

> cars are still not coming out much better than cyclists.

> So it expends on what year and what roads. But more importantly 'deaths per mile travelled' is

> just a load of sh*t and you know it.

1) You've just proved for me that what henryb said was incorrect (that cyclists "don't kill", so well done for proving my point.

2) You have completely failed to reference your death figures for 'minor roads'. That stat does not appear in the link you gave - where did you get it? Did you just make it up?

3) I was actually referring to a rather better statistical analysis that was picked up in another thread, namely this one.

[Miacis]

Well said Katanita. For me this is all abut consideration for others. My daughter was run over by a cyclist when she ran down our garden path onto the pavement and the cyclist was bowling along the pavement.

Could have been very nasty. Fortunately wasn't too bad. But the cyclist's excuse was 'I was late for work'. Oh so that's OK then...

[the-e-dealer]

!Hear hear Jeremy and congrats !

[JohnL]

Saw a cyclist run into another cyclist today during the total confusion outside Blackfriars.

The trains stopping there meant total pedestrian chaos which led to traffic and cyclist chaos as they tried to get across the road.

[giggirl]

Katanita - most sensible post I've read in a long time - well done.

Px

[Zebedee Tring]

Congratulations, Katanita - so well put. And it comes much better from a cyclist like yourself who suffers as a result of the misdeeds of a minority of cyclists.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> 1) You've just proved for me that what henryb said was incorrect (that cyclists "don't kill", so well

> done for proving my point.

No problem, always happy to dig out actual facts.

Loz Wrote:

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

> 2) You have completely failed to reference your death figures for 'minor roads'. That stat does

> not appear in the link you gave - where did you get it? Did you just make it up?

This is getting tedious, you know very well that the data set you used doesn't break fatalities down like that. I used EXACTLY the same data source as you which means I had to use EXACTLY the same method you did to calculate when you discounted motorways - I just removed the mileage. If you're not happy with that, then I'd need to use a different data set (pretty sure one that only includes journeys where pedestrians are likely to be like inner London would be ideal). But I have a hunch that it wouldn't matter would it - because you're just not going to accept that cyclists aren't actually that dangerous after all, no matter what the data or common sense says.

Loz Wrote:

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

> 3) I was actually referring to a rather better statistical analysis that was picked up in another

> thread, namely this one.

You mean the one where he concludes: "In conclusion, bicycles cause far fewer injuries than motor vehicles but on a per km basis, cyclists are lower but surprisingly still in the same order of magnitude as motorised vehicles."

Why is this a "better" statistical analysis? Because he uses the same approach as you?

The thing is Loz, you seem to have completely lost the plot getting caught up in proving this 'deaths per vehicle mile travelled' nonsense because you're so hell bent on demonstrating that cyclists really are dangerous in whatever way possible, even if it makes absolutely no sense to anyone but yourself and some random blogger. What you're failing to understand is that no-one actually gives a sh!t (including, thankfully, the government) how far a vehicle has travelled before it kills someone....what difference does it make if a driver has come all the way down from Birmingham without running anyone over if they then proceed to run someone over in London?? Surely all we should care about is how likely it is we're going to be hit by something and whether or not we're going to die or be seriously injured by whatever hits us?

No-one is saying that cyclists can't be dangerous - everything has the potential to be dangerous and everyone has the potential to be inconsiderate, regardless of the vehicle they're in charge of. But, comparatively speaking, cyclists pose nowhere near as much danger to other road users as people in motorised vehicles do.

'Deaths per average mile travelled' only makes sense when you are talking about how dangerous a particular vehicle is to travel in, not get hit by. Why do you care how far a vehicle has travelled before it hits someone, really? Is it because you think this is genuinely a valid metric, or is it because it's the only way you can pretend your position is valid?

Just because you don't like cyclists on the road doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever to plough resources into something that's going to have such a minor impact on the problem. We need to have a less emotive and more sensible approach to road safety and concentrate on making our roads genuinely safer not getting all het up about 'lycra louts' because we think they're a bit arrogant.

[jesska]

I've said this before on another thread, but I am a driver and also an occasional cyclist who occasionally cycles on the pavement. With my kids, we are always cycling on the pavement, and always for safety reasons. When it is just me on my little clapped-out theft-proof folding Raleigh, there are times when it is either safer or more considerate for me to cycle very slowly on a sparsely populated pavement than gum up traffic on a narrow road. Of course I am not going fast, and of course any pedestrians coming have right of way and I am very happy to stop and let them pass if it's too snug to stay on the bike. We used to live in Tokyo, where cyclists overwhelmingly ride on the pavements and, despite the density of pedestrians and cyclists using one space, this works because people are simply much more considerate of one another. The lack of consideration and common sense, among certain drivers and cyclists alike, is the real problem in London.

[the-e-dealer]

OK new rule cyclists may use pavement if no pedestrians are using it. Thats as far as I will go.