Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!

We’ve just got back from a delightful family weekend at Centre Parcs (Longleat). Don’t ask, it’s not relevant !

We took our bikes and enjoyed cycling around the park. I’m totally satisfied that my lot were completely aware of pedestrians. We slowed down, gave way, dismounted and were pleasantly polite to any pedestrians who eased over to let us pass. I don’t recall any one of us feeling the urge or the need to ring a bell or shout, to inform a pedestrian of our presence. There were 7 of us plus the latest addition in a trailer-buggy.

However, when we were walking, I have lost count of the times I heard an aggressive warning bell just prior to a cyclist, or group of cyclists, whizzing past too fast to cope with a wandering youngster, or simply just “demanding” a mere pedestrian to shift out of their way!

We frequently stroll along sections of the Kennet & Avon canal. Again, cyclists seem to think that sounding their bell (or shouting) is all that is required to ensure that the two of us re-position to line-astern and step aside from the tow-path and into the long grass/nettles/reeds to enable their continued passage at upwards of 15 mph !!

Well, I’m fed up with this element of society. However, I am undecided as to what course of action to take.

Advice ?

"laid-back-but-awfully-reassuring"

Original Post

It depends on the circumstances and road/path/track layout and intent. Where the authorities have, in their infinite wisdom, combined a cycle route intended to take cyclists of the road with a footpath, and not made it wide enough to allow room for both side by side (preferably with indicative lane markings, then there is an inevitable conflict and it is the disigners at fault, rather than specifically either cyclist of pedestrian: commuting or sports cyclists have every right to ride up to the road speed limit, though of course having respect for the pedestrians, and pedestrians have in turn to respect that, and pedestrians with young children need to be aware that cyclists do have the right to use it and to make adequate progress. I personally hate those and usually ride on the road. A bell is intended as a gentle notification to, typically, a pedestrian to let them know the bike is there - personally I only use from a little distance away, and if closer say 'excuse me please'. (I have an air horn to let car drivers know I am there when on the road.) 

if on the other hand it is a pedestrian path not a cycle way, a cyclist using it must always give way to pedestrians and politely ask for space to pass, being prepared to wait if that is not practicable. (In some cases it may be illegal to cycle, but that in itself is not the concern of the pedestrian, though one might reasonably expect a cyclist to be ebpven more careful.)

As with all walks (sic!) of life, there are, unfortunately, rude and inconsiderate cyclists - and rude and inconsiderate pedestrians.

On a different but related subject, what about cyclists riding two (or more) abreast on roads with no easy passing capability? Personally If I am ever cycling with others I only do that when the road is free from traffic in my direction, dropping in whenever a car approaches from behind, but I have heard other cyclists argue that they have the legal rightbto use the ful width of the road, just like any car. My counter-argument is that everyone, car driver and cyclist alike, has a duty to try to a oid causing obstruction to others, and that whilst a car must give way to a cycle in front or on the other side of the road even if well out from the curb, when it is practicable and safe to do so you should cycle closer i. So as not to cause an obstruction - and indeed to avoid unnecessarily irritating other road users causing them then to behave badly, whether reacting against you or trying to overtake in too small a space.

Towpaths are not public rights of way in most cases, but permissive paths. Most are too narrow for lanes separating bikes and pedestrians. Cyclists don't need permits (they used to in places) but they are expected to share the space and give way to pedestrians. Signage reminding people of this (and the odd gate) would not go amiss in my view. It is all about consideration.

Photo above taken about 100yds from my front door. I live in a Lock House on the Leeds Liverpool Canal.

bruce

Cyclists riding two abreast, as I understand it, is perfectly legal, but then being completely stupid is legal as well...

My gripe is cyclists riding on the pavement, or in predestination designated areas, it's seriously dangerous , cycling needs to be either on cycle paths or the road.

 

 

wenger2015 posted:

Cyclists riding two abreast, as I understand it, is perfectly legal, but then being completely stupid is legal as well...

My gripe is cyclists riding on the pavement, or in predestination designated areas, it's seriously dangerous , cycling needs to be either on cycle paths or the road.

 

 

I like the idea of a 'predestination designed area'. What will be will be....

(the joys of predictive text )

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Cyclists riding two abreast, as I understand it, is perfectly legal, but then being completely stupid is legal as well...

My gripe is cyclists riding on the pavement, or in predestination designated areas, it's seriously dangerous , cycling needs to be either on cycle paths or the road.

 

 

I like the idea of a 'predestination designed area'. What will be will be....

(the joys of predictive text )

Bruce

Oops, well spotted,  it's sounds like some kind of religious belief....

Bruce Woodhouse posted:
wenger2015 posted:

Cyclists riding two abreast, as I understand it, is perfectly legal, but then being completely stupid is legal as well...

My gripe is cyclists riding on the pavement, or in predestination designated areas, it's seriously dangerous , cycling needs to be either on cycle paths or the road.

 

 

I like the idea of a 'predestination designed area'. What will be will be....

(the joys of predictive text )

Bruce

It's for people whose paths have been determined in advance - though maybe not necessarily consciously: perhaps a divine route planner?

(I had do choice, m'lud: my bike/legs/car just took me that way...)

Forward observation, planning, mutual common courtesy, patience and civility. Applies to roads and everything on them, spaces shared with cyclists and pavements. The way some people barge down the street without looking around them, let alone in front of them, I'm only glad they are not on bikes. The bikes I've seen being ridden idiotically, I'm only glad they're not in cars. What about idiot car drivers? I'm glad that one is outside the scope of the discussion!

What to do. Plan as far ahead as you can and always expect everyone else to do the most idiotic thing. It keeps (the non idiotic) bikers alive.

My journey to work takes me on the A413 from Buckingham to Aylesbury - the road is undulating, full of blind curves, horse boxes in abundance, tractors etc.  The cyclists really concern me not least that they have to observe the pot holes and I quite often attract the wrath of following drivers because of my very cautious approach to overtaking cyclists.    

However,  Bucks CC have recently invested in an excellent cycle path at the North end of the route but when I was driving home the other evening I had to manouvere past a cyclist who insisted on using the road - presumably legal but idiot all the same. 

james n posted:

I can see where this one will go....

We all just need to slow down and have a bit of consideration and respect for each other. Everyone's in too much of a rush these days whether in cars on on bikes...

Sorry havent got time to reply just n

JamieWednesday posted:

Most cyclists, most drivers, most pedestrians seem OK. It's the mad ones that catch our eye.

Though why a proportion of cyclists riding on the road think traffic lights aren't for them and go sailing through reds (without even a pause) so frequently is beyond me.

Or mount the pavement to bypass the lights, or get off, walk across then mount up again the other side, though the latter isn't so bad - as a cyclist these annoy me because they give cyclists a bad name, weakening our position against those who see cyclists as the scourge of the roads, not the 4x4 drivers trying to negotiate a sharp bend with one hand holding mobile phone to ear and eyes on what the dog or kids are up to on the back seat...

Shared-use paths are only workable if they're very lightly used. Any appreciable traffic and cyclist/pedestrian conflicts will abound. Kind of defeats the purpose. I avoid them wherever I can.

An interesting question: Should pedestrians on shared use paths walk in single file along the edge to allow the faster cyclists to pass unimpeded? After all, that's what many motorists expect of cyclists on the roads.

Cyclists ride two abreast for social reasons (the same reason your car has side-by-side seating). But it can also increase safety by forcing impatient motorists to wait a few seconds until they can see the oncoming lane clearly enough for a safe pass. On many narrow roads, it is often not safe to squeeze by single-file cyclists when the opposite direction lane cannot be see to be clear. In these circumstances, it important that cyclists exert their right to "take the lane" by moving to the centre (if alone), or by riding side-by-side.

Interestingly, here in BC, it is illegal to ride side-by-side at all. One of the few jurisdictions in the world where cyclists' rights as road users are so severely restricted.

Quite often cyclists seem to do a very good job of endangering themselves. Pulling across cars in traffic - we may be driving a car but we aren't mind readers!

Cyclists riding at night with no lights /dark clothes should have their bikes crushed and I I can't see why they don't have 3rd party insurance.... 

 

sjw posted:

Cyclists riding at night with no lights /dark clothes should have their bikes crushed and I I can't see why they don't have 3rd party insurance.... 

I'd just like to see cyclists take some form of proficiency test before being let onto the roads. I think some cyclists are just clueless about how to behave on the road and seem to have no road sense at all. Add in cycling with hoods up / no hands / headphones on and you're asking for trouble...

sjw posted: (as modified by Winky)

"Quite often motorist seem to do a very good job of endangering themselves and others. Pulling across cars in traffic - we may be riding a bike but we aren't mind readers! Failing to use indicators. Failing to stop at stop signs. Running the orange light to save a few seconds. Texting while driving. Brushing past cyclists at high speed. Continually speeding. The list goes on.

Motorists driving at night after drinking should have their cars crushed and I can't see why they don't have to pay for the pollution they cause.... "

 

Made a few modifications. See how that works?

JamieWednesday posted:

Though why a proportion of cyclists riding on the road think traffic lights aren't for them and go sailing through reds (without even a pause) so frequently is beyond me.

It's not beyond me. It's to save time and bit of energy from not having to come to a stop. I actually think it's pretty obvious why cyclists are reluctant to stop at red lights and stop signs when the way is clear.

We all break the road laws, and very often. It's just that we don't see our own rule breaking as dangerous. Take 80km/hr in a 60km/hr zone? "Sure. It's not dangerous. The road is clear and I'm a good driver" . But is a cyclist runs red light? "Unacceptable! Fine them off the road. Get insurance! Get registered. The risks are large and unacceptable. Something must be done!"

winkyincanada posted:
JamieWednesday posted:

Though why a proportion of cyclists riding on the road think traffic lights aren't for them and go sailing through reds (without even a pause) so frequently is beyond me.

It's not beyond me. It's to save time and bit of energy from not having to come to a stop. I actually think it's pretty obvious why cyclists are reluctant to stop at red lights and stop signs when the way is clear.

We all break the road laws, and very often. It's just that we don't see our own rule breaking as dangerous. Take 80km/hr in a 60km/hr zone? "Sure. It's not dangerous. The road is clear and I'm a good driver" . But is a cyclist runs red light? "Unacceptable! Fine them off the road. Get insurance! Get registered. The risks are large and unacceptable. Something must be done!"

Saving time and energy to then get yourself flattened by a bus coming the other way doesn;t seem very sensible. And worse is when they go flying through red lights while pedestrians are crossing. There's a T-junction near me and quite often they come flying downhill, weaving between the pedestrians crossing the road at the lights and are surprised when people don't tolerate it. Crazy.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

My journey to work takes me on the A413 from Buckingham to Aylesbury - the road is undulating, full of blind curves, horse boxes in abundance, tractors etc.  The cyclists really concern me not least that they have to observe the pot holes and I quite often attract the wrath of following drivers because of my very cautious approach to overtaking cyclists.    

However,  Bucks CC have recently invested in an excellent cycle path at the North end of the route but when I was driving home the other evening I had to manouvere past a cyclist who insisted on using the road - presumably legal but idiot all the same. 

I feel for you having to commute on that road - it's certainly not one to use if you are in a hurry. And it's certainly one I avoid if I'm out on my bike, although I have one or two routes where I cross it.  

Clive

sjw posted:

Quite often cyclists seem to do a very good job of endangering themselves. Pulling across cars in traffic - we may be driving a car but we aren't mind readers!

Cyclists riding at night with no lights /dark clothes should have their bikes crushed and I I can't see why they don't have 3rd party insurance.... 

 

Hanging's too good for 'em.

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

 

Cdb posted:

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

 

 

Just to lighten the tone a smidgen..........Not when Winky is the commentator............

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Clive - I do agree about  generalsations although motorists tend to get categorised - BMW() drivers, Audi drivers, 4x4 drivers, white vans when of course there's idiots in all types of vehicles.

Yes, fair point - especially about the idiots!!

Clive

Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

JamieWednesday posted:
winkyincanada posted:
JamieWednesday posted:

Though why a proportion of cyclists riding on the road think traffic lights aren't for them and go sailing through reds (without even a pause) so frequently is beyond me.

It's not beyond me. It's to save time and bit of energy from not having to come to a stop. I actually think it's pretty obvious why cyclists are reluctant to stop at red lights and stop signs when the way is clear.

We all break the road laws, and very often. It's just that we don't see our own rule breaking as dangerous. Take 80km/hr in a 60km/hr zone? "Sure. It's not dangerous. The road is clear and I'm a good driver" . But is a cyclist runs red light? "Unacceptable! Fine them off the road. Get insurance! Get registered. The risks are large and unacceptable. Something must be done!"

Saving time and energy to then get yourself flattened by a bus coming the other way doesn;t seem very sensible. And worse is when they go flying through red lights while pedestrians are crossing. There's a T-junction near me and quite often they come flying downhill, weaving between the pedestrians crossing the road at the lights and are surprised when people don't tolerate it. Crazy.

I see motorists running red lights and turning across pedestrian rights-of-way all the time. They don't seem to give a $h!t about the pedestrians. One difference is that the motorists are able to kill the pedestrians with little consequence.

Don Atkinson posted:
Cdb posted:

So far, so predictable! I'll add a few of the routine responses!

1. The requirement for cyclists to complete a proficiency test. I think you will find that most cyclists do hold a driving license. There have been some interesting truck driver training programmes which have put them out on the road on bikes to get a different perspective.

2. Related to that - rules and regulations for cyclists. The general light approach is right because more cycling should be encouraged for health and safety reasons. There are rules of the road for drivers and cyclists but there is a general problem of enforcement viz. the recent furore about phone use while driving.

3. Generalisation. Whenever negative comments are made about cyclists, it's usually a collective accusation; bad vehicle driving is usually particularised - a driver did so and so.

I think there's a lot of truth in the concern that bad manners generally on the road is a consequence of too much haste and pressure and an increasingly individualised society. Otherwise the mixing of cyclists and pedestrians on the same paths (as on the Kennet and Avon canal path) can be ill planned. I live in Milton Keynes which has pride in its redways which take pedestrians and cyclists away from the roads, but there are no clear rules and the sort of mix you get with commuting cyclists and groups of parents and children going to school, not to mention dogs,  can be positively risky.

I am a driver and a cyclist and I do try to follow the rules and be considerate, but sometimes I get impatient in car and on bike, but I do obey the traffic lights!

Clive

 

 

Just to lighten the tone a smidgen..........Not when Winky is the commentator............

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

Motorists overwhelming hold each other up. Cyclists hardly rate a mention. It is serious issue that the decision to drive imposes costs on others, as well as on ourselves. Because we don't really care about the costs to others, we all choose to drive, both imposing costs on, and being subject to costs from other drivers.

I'll consider lane rental valid if it is normalised for wear and tear that the particular vehicles produce (including full environmental costs), and ALL on street parking is removed.

Don Atkinson posted

 

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

Actually motorists do not pay to use the roads - they pay an excise duty on their car - the commonly called road tax is no such thing and is not hypothecated. The car tax is based on emissions and since bicycles create no emissions they pay no tax. The same may not be said of cyclists but I'm not sure their emissions could be taxed!

Clive

Hungryhalibut posted:
Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

Mobility scooters are the scourge of our local pedestrianised high street...!!

Hungryhalibut posted:
Don Atkinson posted

 

 

And before trying to return this thread to Cyclists v Pedestrians (a hopeless task I concede) I would suggest that :-

a. cyclists holding up motorists are a root cause of pollution and should be made to pay for this.

b. cyclists should pay, as motorists do, to use the roads. This payment should be based on occupancy (ie Lane-Rental) - we have the technology - it's called GPS !!

I'm not sure if you are being tongue in cheek here, but that does sound rather extreme. I see increased cycling as part of the solution, not the problem. A high proportion of car trips are very short and drivers should be encouraged to walk or cycle. But a lot of people are nervous to cycle because there are so many bad or intolerant drivers, which can make the roads dangerous. 

The idea of charging cyclists would reduce cycle use and increase pollution. And if you want to charge cyclists, what about horses? Mobility scooters? Sheep?

A) was slightly tongue-cheek, but follows the current trend of putting "the environment" top of any proposed change or tax.

B) as always is deadly serious. Pay to use ! If you want to use the gym to get fit, you pay. If we want safe cycleways we should pay. Start a new political party or get one of the existing to add Sustrans to their manifesto and make it clear how they will fund it. And I don't think Local Authorities are the right medium. It needs to be a National project to provide segregated routes for cyclists.

If enough people want it, it will happen.

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×