SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next > Last »
Granny spinners
Author Message
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #41
04-06-2011 10:36 PM

ryananglem: Indeed, I had assumed we were talking about a different cut-through altogether. Mind you, I'm not sure what difference it makes, unless of course you are correct in thinking that pedestrians don't mind cyclists suddenly appearing round a sharp bend. But you know your area better than I do - perhaps on your pathway the locals can see round corners. It does sound like they need to.

Pavement cyclists tend to waffle a lot about politeness, and using common sense, and giving way to pedestrians, and how all that makes it OK to cycle on the pavement (that's the pavement, not Psychics' Alley). But it's all nonsense. If I intrude on your territory it's for you to say whether or not you mind, not me, and the pedestrians on this thread seem pretty clear that they do mind. So that ought to be that.

The reality is often Poppy's experience, and so often cyclists (whatever camp they claim to belong to) actually aren't upset by her kind of experience, which they should be. Instead they just become defensive, as has happened here. It seems to me that global warming has resulted in politicians encouraging more cycling, which sounds fine, except that all that has happened is that people who are not real cyclists are buying bikes, but then haven't the skill or bottle to use the road.

Find all posts by this user Reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #42
04-06-2011 10:45 PM

I might not be a cyclist, but I do a lot of walking, including hillwalking, so the implied assumption that anyone not on a bike is unfit is a bit daft.

Poppy's experience is all too common - I've been forced off bridleways by some very aggressive cycling. Of course some cyclists have been polite and thanked me if I've moved out of the way for them...but a worryingly large number have barged past me as if I'm invisible, even on very narrow paths.

Sorry all you cyclists who don't want to hear this, but I'm not going to lie about it, I'm telling the truth - I'm sorry you don't want to hear it.

Cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement. That's an inarguable fact.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #43
05-06-2011 01:30 AM

Quote:
The only way to bring in mass cycling would be... to build well-made, continuous, segregated cycle routes on all major urban roads and encourage people out of cars by restricting traffic speeds and parking.

Another reform would be a European-style "strict liability" law in which the automatic assumption of responsibility would rest with the less vulnerable road user.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...-campaigns

Some interesting ideas here. And presumably this strict liability law would cover any cyclist/pedestrian collision, discouraging reckless behaviour and forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #44
06-06-2011 08:47 AM

Sigh, I should know better after years of getting involved in similar 'discussions...

Quote:
Who said we were blaming an entire group?
You say we shouldn't blame all cyclists, when we weren't.
And we're told that "the majority of cyclists" ride on the road. Whoever said otherwise? Read before you post.


There are a few comments in here that claim the majority of cyclists are at fault and suggestions such as licensing cyclists as a whole group explain why anyone who feels they are a cyclist has right to respond...

Quote:
Given all the other nonsense from many cyclists (not a minority), I would licence them.

Quote:
I'm all for encouraging proper cyclists, but they are becoming a minority.

Quote:
How about cyclists using the road? They're not forced onto the pavement. It's a choice they make because they are selfish or timid.

Quote:
it is usually completely ignored by fully grown "men" who use the (very narrow) pavement to cycle on.

Quote:
I would very much like to see cyclists respect the idea that pavements are foot paths.

Quote:
More and more I think the majority of cyclists spoil it for the minority.


Whether by implication or inference there are enough references there that support some people's view that all cyclists are being addressed.

Suggesting that cyclists are a hazard because they are "untrained, unlicenced and uninsured" is just bizarre. What training, licensing and insurance do we all hold that allows us to step outside our house and go about our business on foot? There is no evidence that cyclists are responsible for significant risk, injury or damage to themselves or others else there would be a compelling case to introduce some or all of those things. I've been knocked off my bike a number of times by pedestrians straying into the road. Three of these have been significant, causing more than £1,000 of damage to property and serious injury (which I'm still suffering the effects of 3 years since the worst). But do I want pedestrians trained, licensed and insured? No, because it is plainly ridiculous to do so.

Michael, there used to be a very useful TFL website/department called something like 'London Streets'. It contained details of all pavements on which cycling was permitted. Seems to have disappeared though. Sadly, not all are physically marked with signs like those alongside the South Circular from the Harvester towards Dulwich College.

All that said, I agree that cyclists should only cycle where they are permitted to do so, not jump red lights and crossings, etc, etc. I also happen to believe that most of us abide by those rules and acknowledge that a noticeable number do not.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #45
06-06-2011 09:37 AM

IWAF Thumbup Best post by far.

Find all posts by this user Reply
nork1


Posts: 15
Joined: Dec 2007
Post: #46
06-06-2011 12:12 PM

I think the whole cyclist/pedestrian/motorist thing is a matter of education, peer pressure and enforcement of existing laws. Anyone who's been to Holland or Denmark will notice how cyclists stick to roads and cycle lanes and pedestrians stick to the pavement and daren't wander into cycle lanes. I've had personal experience of being pulled up for jaywalking in Tallinn and Frankfurt. In Tallinn I tried to get across a near empty road at a green light - I was stopped by the police and lectured on road safety laws. In Frankfurt I tried a similar thing and was yelled at by members of the public... they saw my actions as setting a bad example to kids and told me in no uncertain terms how irresponsible I was. Having been reprimanded like that I didn't do it again. I also noticed that none of the locals did.

I was a cyclist. I still have a bike but rarely use it now - I got sick of the abuse from motorists but more surprisingly from other bike users. As a cyclist I NEVER went on pavements and ALWAYS obeyed traffic signals regardless of whether or not the way was clear. I was in the miniority. On countless occasions when slowing down for lights I was verbally abused by other cyclists who assumed I was going to carry on then had to slam the anchors on to avoid running into me. If I was at a red between 2 vehicles, cyclists behind me have sworn at me for blocking their way - AT A RED!

I've seen threads on this subject before and they all go the same way. The argument will go around in circles with each group admitting to and trying to justify why they break the rules then attempting to deflect their wrongdoing by pointing a finger at another group ('I cycle on the pavement but car drivers use mobiles so are just as dangerous', 'I don't wait for the green man when I cross but hey, cyclists don't stop at red lights anyway', etc.). Until ALL road and pavement users get it into their skulls that road rules are there for the benefit of EVERYONE and should be obeyed by EVERYONE, until cyclists admonish other cyclists for their appalling lack of adherence to the highway code, until pedestrians are made to see jaywalking as unacceptable, until motorists realise there are other more vulnerable road users and become more tolerant then nothing will change.

Find all posts by this user Reply
ryananglem


Posts: 167
Joined: Apr 2009
Post: #47
06-06-2011 12:42 PM

Although with a bias toward cycling - this (lengthy but informative) article explains the law (I'm most people who have contributed to this thread will feel vindicated for their arguements in some way):

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articl...d-the-law/

This article gives an example how it is often poorly enforced:

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/dear-po...reet-legal

Find all posts by this user Reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #48
06-06-2011 12:48 PM

Nork's post is balanced and sensible, and I agree.

And I'd like to add that I've chosen my language carefully and nowhere have blamed all cyclists. I have noticed an increasing problem which is why I commented in the first place.

If something is getting worse and causing danger, it is worthy of discussion - even if only to compare perspectives with other road users.
I think it's a shame that the thread originally highlighted a worrying trend and it's got sidelined into blame and counter blame. All responsible cyclists should be equally concerned about the way a growing number of people are behaving. It does no one any favours to use attack as the best form of defence.

No doubt there are dopey pedestrians but I'm sure they don't go out of their way to put themselves in danger. I think cycling on the pavement and often being aggressive to pedestrians is a very deliberate act which is what prompted some of the contributions in the first place. No point in attacking those who are raising these concerns.

Find all posts by this user Reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #49
06-06-2011 12:55 PM

Also, pedestrians have no choice but to cross the road. Sometimes this is made easier than at others.

It's not helped by traffic lights not working, or cyclists ignoring them anyway, or as someone pointed out, the growing number of nutters on Boris bikes who I am now very wary of after witnessing the way many of them behave near where I work. I dread their approach when I'm trying to get across the road now that roadworks have put most of the pedestrian crossings out of use.

So even the most cautious pedestrian will face a number of challenges and annoyances when simply trying to cross a road.

On the other hand, there is no excuse for adult cyclists to use the pavement for sustained periods.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #50
06-06-2011 03:45 PM

Half the posts quoted above refer explicitly to a proportion of cyclists, and the context of the other posts made it clear that they were only referring to cyclists who ride on the pavement. If this is becoming a cyclists vs the world thread, it is because of the disappointingly defensive and often irrelevant responses by cyclists.

If a cyclist posted a thread about pedestrians who wander into the road and cause accidents, it wouldnít occur to me to change the subject and start accusing cyclists of this, that and the other. Iíd think, ďthatís perfectly true - pedestrians can be absolute idiots.Ē

Licensing would be very easy to introduce, and I think it would help a lot. I didnít mind being licensed when I rode a motorbike and I wouldnít have minded when I rode a bike.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #51
06-06-2011 03:54 PM

I have just seen a middle-aged man riding along the pavement, alongside an empty cycle path. Elsewhere, a woman riding on the pavement wearing a crash helmet. Doubly safe! Goodness me.

Also a boy of no more than twelve riding his bicycle confidently on a main road. Legal, competent, no problem at all. Twelve.

Find all posts by this user Reply
BT


Posts: 162
Joined: Jul 2003
Post: #52
06-06-2011 03:55 PM

Section 64 Highway Code

64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
[Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129]

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #53
06-06-2011 09:06 PM

We'll have to disagree about our opinions on the quotes I posted.

I have no problem with the subject of the original thread but I do disagree with the suggestion that licensing cyclists is a sensible response to the problem. Especially with the idea that it would be easy to set up, maintain, police and that it'd deal with the problem. But I'm happy to debate it: What would licensing cyclists be in response to (bearing in mind that licensing of this form is done to protect against the significant risk of serious consequence)? And what benefit do you see it bringing in response to cycling on the pavement?

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #54
06-06-2011 09:50 PM

What nobody seems prepared to acknowledge in this kind of discussion is that anti-cyclist sentiment, particularly in cities, is largely inspired by the envy which the old, unfit, timid and lazy naturally feel towards the young, athletic, bold and energetic, which is what most urban cyclists are.(In the country it's different - old maids cycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist, etc). Added to this is the understandable resentment which motorists feel about people who, unfairly in their view, are able to scoot around congested street more quickly and enormously more cheaply than they can. If non-cyclists were prepared to admit to these sentiment and cyclists realized the extent to which they inspire them, that would be the first step towards a sensible accommodation between the two factions.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Jane_D


Posts: 189
Joined: Jan 2010
Post: #55
06-06-2011 10:01 PM

Nork1, thanks for your post. How did those other countries get so many citizens so firmly supportive of the rules of the road? That would really make a difference; much more reliable and sociable than licencing.

Find all posts by this user Reply
seeformiles


Posts: 269
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #56
06-06-2011 11:46 PM

Robin, your 9.50...

huh??

I don't think you can speak on behalf of the vast number of people who don't cycle. Including many like myself who take other forms of exercise. What a bizarre analysis.

I certainly don't feel envy and I've never detected that in any of the discourse about these issues.

So if someone breaks the law and behaves aggressively, we only mention it because we're jealous? Perhaps it gets mentioned simply because it's a growing problem and as a result more people notice it.

You're also forgetting the fact that when people aren't on bikes or in cars they are also pedestrians. Would be interesting to see how people behave when in these different modes of transport.

Find all posts by this user Reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #57
07-06-2011 06:42 AM

Quote:
So if someone breaks the law and behaves aggressively, we only mention it because we're jealous?

No, but it adds to people's irritation. 'You've already go all these advantages over us, now you want to elbow your way even further ahead by breaking the rules!' Rubbing our noses in it, or rubbing salt into the wounds - that's the feeling in many cases, I suggest.

Quote:
You're also forgetting the fact that when people aren't on bikes or in cars they are also pedestrians.


Indeed, but perceptions change. If I'm waiting for a bus on Dartmouth Road, they never come; if I'm driving along Dartmouth Road, it's jammed with buses. If as a pedestrian I want to cross a busy road, I look for a gap in the traffic and cunningly nip across; if I'm driving in slow-moving traffic, I curse pedestrians who suddenly jump out from the pavement in front of me.

Find all posts by this user Reply
hillsideresident


Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2010
Post: #58
07-06-2011 07:01 AM

Speak for yourself, Robin. What a very odd post.

As for how licensing might help: firstly, I think it is bizarre that anyone should be able to use the road without insurance. Accidents happen. It is also evident that plenty of cyclists either do not know the highway code or couldnít care less. We can disagree about the proportions. I also think it is unreasonable that car-drivers and motorcyclists have to pay a tax to use the road, but cyclists donít. I would suggest that cyclists would have to have a licence to ride a bike on the road, and before they get the licence they would have to pass a cycling proficiency test. Then they would renew the licence each year by paying a fee of whatever amount, it neednít be much, part of which would go to administer the scheme, and part would go on insurance. Then the law would have some leverage. If the police pull over a cyclist on the pavement now, itís a meaningless £30 fine. With licensing, if the cyclist breaks the law he would lose points from his licence or have it withdrawn. If he cycles without a licence, that would be a serious offence, just as it is for a car-driver or a motorcyclist. There would be some point in the police taking action, just as they do for everyone else.

Not only would this give pavements back to pedestrians, but the number of cyclists killed on the roads should drop, hopefully dramatically, partly because they would all know what theyíre doing, not just some of them, and partly because motorists would respect them a whole lot more. I donít see the problem myself Ė I wouldnít have minded such a scheme one bit. I just see it as cyclists joining the adult world.

Some proper cyclists would probably feel aggrieved, but we donít allow car drivers to do without a licence just because they drive well, or motorcyclists to do without insurance just because they donít ride on the pavement. Personally, I think something of this sort is inevitable.

As for drivers and pedestrians: I think it would be very helpful if people had to pass the cycling proficiency test before they could move on to ride a motorbike or drive a car. That way they would understand things from the cyclist's point of view. And schools should teach children how to cross the road properly - although presumably this already happens?

Find all posts by this user Reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #59
07-06-2011 07:26 AM

Quote:
I also think it is unreasonable that car-drivers and motorcyclists have to pay a tax to use the road, but cyclists donít.


Oh god...[/quote]

Find all posts by this user Reply
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #60
07-06-2011 07:30 AM

I think we can end this thread by agreeing that if ALL road and pavement users were a little more attentive, stuck to the rules and showed consideration for others we wouldnt have this issue.

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (6): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields