Kamikaze Cyclists!

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Like I said, I don't accept the premise. It's a non sequitur.


Ultimately, we can do what's legal, and we shouldn't do what's illegal. Your opinion has no bearing on this.


What bothers you about the illegal behaviour of cyclists. The danger? The fact they get away with it? The unfairness?
I recently read that motorists commit on average between 20,000 and 100,000 moving traffic offences before they are caught for one. Given that they are also 10,000 times the threat risk of cyclists, any thought that cyclists are gaining any unfair advantage is not only wrong, but petty.


THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE! :wall:

Your view that a cyclist's equal right to use the public highway is a politically correct loophole is, thank goodness, a view that most in responsible office would see as, erm... unrepresentative;)


Or, more likely, just an ordinary guy.


hhmmmm.... :think:


So now you're as bad as those you're berating! Tsk.


No thanks.

Brat - I understand that you are unable to agree with any of the points which I have made. But you offer no alternative point of view...

1. What is the premise which you don't accept, and which bit of my post is a non sequitur?

2. Is cycling on the pavement legal, or illegal? Please don't say 'it depends'.

3. My problem with the illegal behaviour of cyclists is precisely because they get away with it, and in doing so, they create danger for pedestrians. Your statistics are meaningless - you could double the figures or you could halve them, and nobody would be any the wiser.

4. A cyclist's equal right to the use of the public highway is a historical accident, and it would never be allowed if the bicycle were to be invented today.

5. A County Cycling Officer is almost certain to be a serious cyclist, as well as an ordinary guy. The cycling bit would probably be a major pre-requisite for the Council's HR department.

6. Why do you think that cycle manufacturers should not be required to provide an effective and secure lighting system as standard equipment?

Norman_Castle

Is cycling on the pavement legal, or illegal? Please don't say 'it depends'.

Its illegal but accepted if done responsibly. Slow speed and a safe distance from pedestrians. Most dangerous pavement cyclists are teenagers. You're right to be annoyed by it. I am, but its unfair to judge all cyclists by their behavior.

I well understand why cyclists use the pavements, but I don't understand why they are allowed to use the pavements.

They are allowed to use the pavements because, if done responsibly, it causes no harm.

A County Cycling Officer is almost certain to be a serious cyclist, as well as an ordinary guy. The cycling bit would probably be a major pre-requisite for the Council's HR department.

They are also likely to be a motorist and pedestrian. Assuming they must be biased simply demonstrates your anti cyclist bias.

modsandmockers

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Its illegal but accepted if done responsibly. Slow speed and a safe distance from pedestrians. Most dangerous pavement cyclists are teenagers. You're right to be annoyed by it. I am, but its unfair to judge all cyclists by their behavior.

They are allowed to use the pavements because, if done responsibly, it causes no harm.

They are also likely to be a motorist and pedestrian. Assuming they must be biased simply demonstrates your anti cyclist bias.

By whom is cycling on the pavement regarded as acceptable? And who is to be the judge of whether or not it is being done responsibly?

In my town, there is a big problem at one particular location with cyclists forcing pedestrians to step into the same road which the cyclists have already decided is too dangerous for them to use. It is within a 20mph zone.

The problem is worst at commuter time, but continues throughout the day. That is the issue which I complained about to the County Cycling Officer, and received no meaningful reply - I would have expected at the very least that the Cycling Officer would have taken the trouble to come and have a look at the problem one morning.

The offending cyclists are not teenagers, they are adult commuters, and their behaviour is completely unacceptable to every pedestrian in the vicinity.

There are many regulations which can safely be ignored at certain times and in certain circumstances, but the regulations are necessary because individuals cannot always be trusted to make sound judgements. That's why we have speed cameras.

You are welcome to call me 'biased', but I genuinely don't understand why cyclists are allowed to pick and choose which regulations they should or should not obey, whilst at the same time demanding that motorists (and pedestrians?) should at all times make space for bikes.

Norman_Castle

By whom is cycling on the pavement regarded as, or can be, acceptable?

The Home Office, for the purpose of judging if fixed penalty notice should be issued.

And who is to be the judge of whether or not it is being done responsibly?

The police.

You are welcome to call me 'biased', but I genuinely don't understand why cyclists are allowed to pick and choose which regulations they should or should not obey, whilst at the same time demanding that motorists (and pedestrians?) should at all times make space for bikes.

Cyclists aren't allowed to pick and choose. They are expected to act responsibly.
Driving safely or "making space" with regards to other road users is a requirement of holding a driving license.

If you feel action should be taken against these cyclists contact the police. Hopefully they will take whatever action is judged appropriate.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - I understand that you are unable to agree with any of the points which I have made. But you offer no alternative point of view...

I have spent a lot of time on this and other posts you have been on explaining my point of view. Your post was too long and rambling to further repeat myself on.

1. What is the premise which you don't accept, and which bit of my post is a non sequitur?

I don't accept that there must be conflict between different road users.
The non sequitur is the above. It doesn't follow that because there are different types of road user on the road, there must be conflict.

2. Is cycling on the pavement legal, or illegal? Please don't say 'it depends'.

It is illegal unless there are signs to the contrary.

3. My problem with the illegal behaviour of cyclists is precisely because they get away with it, and in doing so, they create danger for pedestrians. Your statistics are meaningless - you could double the figures or you could halve them, and nobody would be any the wiser.

They may well be meaningless to you. But it doesn't prevent them from being right, and of value.
While you're fretting about the danger that cyclists pose to pedestrians, it's worthwhile considering that for every pedestrian killed by a cyclist on a pavement, lightning will kill 25 people in the UK in the same time. The poor unfairly treated motorists will have killed 10,000 people in the same time.

And as I said, the motorist offends between 20,000 and 100,000 times before being caught once, so please go and revisit your ridiculous sense of unfairness.

4. A cyclist's equal right to the use of the public highway is a historical accident, and it would never be allowed if the bicycle were to be invented today.

Bullpoo.

5. A County Cycling Officer is almost certain to be a serious cyclist, as well as an ordinary guy. The cycling bit would probably be a major pre-requisite for the Council's HR department.

And...?? Is this really as good as it gets!?

6. Why do you think that cycle manufacturers should not be required to provide an effective and secure lighting system as standard equipment?

Because I don't want a light stuck on the front or rear of my bike if I don't need it, and I want to be able to choose the right lights for my bike.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

By whom is cycling on the pavement regarded as acceptable? And who is to be the judge of whether or not it is being done responsibly?

The Home Office. Guidance issued by Paul Boateng in 1999 states: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

modsandmockers wrote: »

There are many regulations which can safely be ignored at certain times and in certain circumstances, but the regulations are necessary because individuals cannot always be trusted to make sound judgements. That's why we have speed cameras.

You are welcome to call me 'biased', but I genuinely don't understand why cyclists are allowed to pick and choose which regulations they should or should not obey, whilst at the same time demanding that motorists (and pedestrians?) should at all times make space for bikes.

Because not all laws or regulations apply to everyone all the time in all situations. Speed limits vary between vehicle types. Pedestrians are allowed to walk anywhere they like (in cycle lanes, in the road, everywhere). Drivers can drive on motorways, cyclists are banned. There are bus lanes where you can drive at some times but are banned at others.


Importantly, IT IS NOT THE USER WHO MAKES THE RULES.


You mention speed cameras to support your argument that drivers don't "pick and choose" when to speed - I suggest you stand 30m away from one and watch the brake lights as drivers pick and choose when they obey the law...


People on bikes want drivers to give them space for their own personal safety. That's it. No other reason. Sadly this seems to be outrageous and selfish of other human beings wanting to travel from A to B in safety.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Importantly, IT IS NOT THE USER WHO MAKES THE RULES

Agreed! But it is the user who decides whether or not to obey the rules. And cyclists. more than any other group of road-users, are able to pick and choose about whether or not to take their rightful place in the pecking order, or whether to divert onto the pavement or into other road-users space.

When I was a driver, I willingly allowed cyclists to barge in and out of the traffic lanes, and the majority of motorists do the same. But now that I am a pedestrian, I really don't understand why I have to share the pavement with cyclists.

Cyclists are able to get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour because neither the rider nor the bike is registered on any kind of database.

Marco_Panettone

modsandmockers wrote: »

Agreed! But it is the user who decides whether or not to obey the rules. And cyclists. more than any other group of road-users, are able to pick and choose about whether or not to take their rightful place in the pecking order, or whether to divert onto the pavement or into other road-users space.

Which is?

modsandmockers wrote: »

When I was a driver, I willingly allowed cyclists to barge in and out of the traffic lanes, and the majority of motorists do the same. But now that I am a pedestrian, I really don't understand why I have to share the pavement with cyclists.

You mean filtering? Perfectly legal, as it is for motorbikes. Using ANY part of the lane? Also perfectly legal.


You have to share because this country has continually failed to provide safe cycling infrastructure that is usable by everyone. It's the same reason I have to share the road with motor traffic. There are also many pavements that are now 'shared use' so cyclists can legally use these too. I'm not saying this is the right situation, but it IS the situation. The best way to change it is to campaign for proper high-quality, protected cycle infrastructure.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cyclists are able to get away with all sorts of unacceptable behaviour because neither the rider nor the bike is registered on any kind of database.

Neither are pedestrians. There are over a million uninsured drivers too, still using the roads. Registration changes nothing about behaviour - look at the number of licenced drivers of registered vehicles that STILL break the law. Look at the campaigns AGAINST speed cameras and red-light cameras - drivers don't want to be caught, and the police are sadly ineffective on the roads now.


Also, much of this "unacceptable behaviour" is the result of a total lack of suitable infrastructure that would allow people to ride bikes in safety.

Enterprise_1701C

I am a cyclist, but not a kamikaze one.

I frequently see buses pull out in front of me at a junction, meaning they must have jumped the lights.

I have had people try to grab my handlebars when I am on a toucan crossing (cyclists and pedestrians) shouting no bikes, I have had people throw lit cigarettes and full tins of coke at me, I have had people accuse me of jumping the lights when the cycle light is permanently green.

I have people telling me that cyclists should not use cycle paths, I have equally been informed that as I do not pay road tax I have no right to be on the road. I have even had (so far) a bus try to force me off the road and a large lorry force me to jump off my bike to avoid being knocked off, somehow I ended up on my feet with my bike beside me on the path, the lorry in question went speeding through lights with its wheels about a foot from the path, I would have been killed if I had not jumped.

I wear high vis jackets, I use lights, and I obey the rules of the road. It is not just cyclists at fault.

modsandmockers

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Which is?






You mean filtering? Perfectly legal, as it is for motorbikes. Using ANY part of the lane? Also perfectly legal.


You have to share because this country has continually failed to provide safe cycling infrastructure that is usable by everyone. It's the same reason I have to share the road with motor traffic. There are also many pavements that are now 'shared use' so cyclists can legally use these too. I'm not saying this is the right situation, but it IS the situation. The best way to change it is to campaign for proper high-quality, protected cycle infrastructure.




Neither are pedestrians. There are over a million uninsured drivers too, still using the roads. Registration changes nothing about behaviour - look at the number of licenced drivers of registered vehicles that STILL break the law. Look at the campaigns AGAINST speed cameras and red-light cameras - drivers don't want to be caught, and the police are sadly ineffective on the roads now.


Also, much of this "unacceptable behaviour" is the result of a total lack of suitable infrastructure that would allow people to ride bikes in safety.

You make some good points. The reason why there is so little infrastructure for cyclists is because the decline in cycling during the last few decades of the 20th century was expected to continue, and the money was better spent on motorways. On new housing developments now, there is usually a token network of paths, which are mainly designed for buggy-pushing shoppers. If those paths are designated for joint use, then the target has been met, even though the paths are completely useless for cyclists.

Vehicle registration is enormously useful in helping to identify motoring offenders, and I suspect that you would be one of those cyclists who would refuse to use a designated cycle path because you actually enjoy your confrontations with motorised road users.