We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Pavement perils
Comments
-
-
I believe that the use of the footpath probably is a safer alternative for these cyclists, so, if illegal use of footpaths by cyclists saves many more lives than it costs, should more of them be opened up legally to allow careful use by cyclists? Should we maintain the 'light touch' attitude to enforcement that we currently have, or should we ignore the peril to the cyclist and shove them off the safer footpath onto the more dangerous road?
That is complete total and utter bulls**t..... why should cyclist be able to terrorise pedestrians on the pavement. Would you allow a timid driver to drive on the pavement or maybe a motorcyclist?. Why should a frail pensioner have cyclist zooming up from behind them or a mother and child have to dodge cyclist with a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude?
If you feel unable to cycle on the road then get off your bike and push it on the pavement. What gives you the right to transfer the risk of injury from you being hit by a car i.e your risk for being on the road to a pedestrian who has no choice and doesn't accept the risk being hit by a fu*king selfish cyclist illegally riding on the pavement???
And thats the crux of it.... I'm not going to put MYSELF at risk cycling on the road with cars but I'm more than happy to transfer the risk of injury to a no doubt vulnerable pedestrian who doesn't want or consent to accept the risk.
Until the Police operate a zero tolerance policy to cycling on the pavement and fine cyclist £80 for doing it more and more cowardly cyclist will take the easy option and put pedestrians at risk
BTW Garmin Connect shows that my Edge 1000 recorded 332.68 miles last week before you or anyone else thinks I'm a car driving cycle hater. Cycling need to get its own house in order before pointing at others.0 -
Sorry, that wasn't the point I was wanting to make.
I don't think the parents would have had a road safety message on their minds when they took the video to the media.
I wonder what motivated them to go straight to the media?
Actually, my own view is that they went to the media precisely in order to give a road safety message and, as a secondary factor, to publicise exactly who the particular culprit in this incident was.0 -
Mr_Singleton wrote: »Looking at your profile image I'm sure your familiar with Road.cc
I follow them on Twitter, but I haven't read support for the cyclist that isn't cynical or sarcastic. Perhaps you could highlight one or two that you've found.
I agree that many will see this incident as the inevitable result of the failure to adequately protect cyclists on the road. I support that view, but that in no way translates to support for the cyclist's behaviour either leading up to or (reportedly) after the incident.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
They shouldn't.Mr_Singleton wrote: »why should cyclist be able to terrorise pedestrians on the pavement.
No.Would you allow a timid driver to drive on the pavement or maybe a motorcyclist?
They shouldn't.Why should a frail pensioner have cyclist zooming up from behind them or a mother and child have to dodge cyclist with a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude?
I'm happy to cycle on the road.If you feel unable to cycle on the road then get off your bike and push it on the pavement.
I don't have that right.What gives you the right to transfer the risk of injury from you being hit by a car i.e your risk for being on the road to a pedestrian who has no choice and doesn't accept the risk being hit by a fu*king selfish cyclist illegally riding on the pavement???
Yeah yeah...And thats the crux of it.... I'm not going to put MYSELF at risk cycling on the road with cars but I'm more than happy to transfer the risk of injury to a no doubt vulnerable pedestrian who doesn't want or consent to accept the risk.Until the Police operate a zero tolerance policy to cycling on the pavement and fine cyclist £80 for doing it more and more cowardly cyclist will take the easy option and put pedestrians at risk
Perhaps if you had read what I'd written rather than ranting like a schoolchild, you might understand that the problem needs a resolution that takes it beyond simple zero tolerance enforcement. Many cyclists would cycle more if they were afforded the safety that's afforded to pedestrians. Many, like you and I are more assertive, we laugh at rule #5 and just get on with it, but we shouldn't expect all would-be cyclists to possess that confidence.
Well done you.BTW Garmin Connect shows that my Edge 1000 recorded 332.68 miles last week before you or anyone else thinks I'm a car driving cycle hater. Cycling need to get its own house in order before pointing at others.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Bit emotive isn't it?.Mr_Singleton wrote: »That is complete total and utter bulls**t..... why should cyclist be able to terrorise pedestrians on the pavement. Would you allow a timid driver to drive on the pavement or maybe a motorcyclist?. Why should a frail pensioner have cyclist zooming up from behind them or a mother and child have to dodge cyclist with a "get the f*ck out of my way" attitude?
.
Pavement cycling as described above isn't tolerated.0 -
Mr_Singleton wrote: »
If you feel unable to cycle on the road then get off your bike
And THIS is the crux of the problem. We need to design our streets so that people do not have to choose between their personal safety and mode of transport.
People shouldn't feel that they have to ride illegally in order to feel safe.It's only numbers.0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »Bit emotive isn't it?.
Pavement cycling as described above isn't tolerated.
Especially as it'll encourage "pavement got to overtake that cyclist at all costs" driving!0 -
Marco_Panettone wrote: »
People shouldn't feel that they have to ride illegally in order to feel safe.
Answer to that is = they don't (ie have to ride illegally to feel safe).
No-one is forcing them to illegally ride along pavements. They are freely choosing to do so and put their safety before the safety of pedestrians. They are the ones who have decided that "ME first" is their mantra and blow everyone else.0 -
moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »Answer to that is = they don't (ie have to ride illegally to feel safe).
No-one is forcing them to illegally ride along pavements. They are freely choosing to do so and put their safety before the safety of pedestrians. They are the ones who have decided that "ME first" is their mantra and blow everyone else.
So your answer to everything that is made to feel unsafe by other people's actions is "stop doing it then"? Great. Well done. I really hope you don't ever get attacked in a public place, or hit by a car crossing a road or when cycling. If anything ever does happen to you, can I assume you'll follow your own advice and just stop going out at all?
Will you advise people to stop using pavements because of this incident?It's only numbers.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards