Sabotage and hatred: what have people got against cyclists?

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

There's no value in quoting other people's comments completely out of context.

We were never talking about moving cars on pavements - that was the whole point.

Equally, the nuisance issue stands in isolation from any actual danger of injury, and this should be obvious from the basic physics, the accident stats or personal experience.

I started the conversation about parked cars obstructing the pavement, and the fact that this was likely to be a greater risk to pedestrians than cyclists. I think you missed or failed to recognise the obvious risk to pedestrians being forced onto the road into traffic, when they should be free to use the pavement.

Not only do stationary obstructive cars cause risk to pedestrians, they are a a nuisance. For me, as a walker and jogger, they're much more of a problem than pavement cyclists.

The risk to pedestrians on pavements from moving vehicles absolutely dwarfs the risk from cyclists, of that there is no doubt, but the risk and nuisance of a stationary obstructive car on a pavement is in my view unlikely to be less than a moving pavement cyclist.

NBLondon

I think I mostly agree with cornucopia here... When I drive (suburban London) I'm cautious of all cyclists. When I walk (especially Central London) I'm wary of the minority who are inconsiderate of pedestrians - y'know the ones who

often (consciously) narrowly miss a pedestrian which may give them a shock

or in my experience decide that their "freedom" to filter through motor traffic and ignore traffic signs/pedestrian crossings overrides any consideration for others. In a 20 minute walk this morning: 1) I'm crossing at a "green man" no vehicle traffic around so 2 cyclists together decide to cross the red light and pass just behind me. 2) I'm crossing at a zebra, van has stopped but cyclist decides to coast across between me and another pedestrian. 3) On a one-way street with a contra-flow cycle lane (nicely separated from motor traffic by a raised kerb) a cyclist decides he'd rather ride down the cycle lane the wrong way than down the empty road. (If you want to see it - Google Earth for Bury Place, London WC1 and check the big arrows pointing northwards in the cycle lane).


The risk to me is minimised because I'm wary of these minority of inconsiderate cyclists - and I'm reasonably able-bodied with working hearing and sight.


Sorry, brat, but your argument about pavement parking isn't equivalent.

the risk and nuisance of a stationary obstructive car on a pavement is in my view unlikely to be less than a moving pavement cyclist.

Yes, it can cause people to move into the road where they are at higher risk but they are aware of that risk and take precautions. The less-able pedestrian (as mentioned upthread) cannot take precautions against the cyclist who suddenly takes to the pavement to avoid a junction - or as I saw earlier this week - the cyclist who decides he can ride through a railway station building at rush hour!


Comparing fatalities is only a partial picture. If you compared near misses (I accept you can probably only count them anecdotally) then inconsiderate cyclists are responsible for far more. Any motorist who daily took a short-cut at cruising speed through a pedestrian zone while blowing his/her horn and shouting at pedestrians to get out of his/her way would be quickly identified and visited by your professional colleagues. Cyclists do it with impunity.


And just to re-iterate... in my empirical studies (aka watching the traffic as I cross roads); at least two-thirds of cyclists are perfectly reasonable in their behaviour. Maybe another 15% or so are just incompetent and ignorant. But around 20% are arrogant and inconsiderate and may turn aggressive when challenged.

Marco_Panettone

NBLondon wrote: »

And just to re-iterate... in my empirical studies (aka watching the traffic as I cross roads); at least two-thirds of cyclists are perfectly reasonable in their behaviour. Maybe another 15% or so are just incompetent and ignorant. But around 20% are arrogant and inconsiderate and may turn aggressive when challenged.

That isn't an empirical study. It's you using anecdotal evidence to formulate belief about certain unmeasured behavioural traits.


How is 'competence' measured? Arrogance, too? What's the scale of these things, even? Until you explain your scoring systems, and replicate your "studies" to test a hypothesis rather than to fit pre-existing beliefs it is most certainly NOT empirical evidence of anything.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

Sorry, brat, but your argument about pavement parking isn't equivalent.
Yes, it can cause people to move into the road where they are at higher risk but they are aware of that risk and take precautions. The less-able pedestrian (as mentioned upthread) cannot take precautions against the cyclist who suddenly takes to the pavement to avoid a junction - or as I saw earlier this week - the cyclist who decides he can ride through a railway station building at rush hour!.

My experience differs from yours, and I have only been talking about my personal experience re pavement parking.
For me, as a jogger and a walker, pavement parking is a PITA. When I walk the dog, I often have to walk on the road to avoid parked cars (or more often) white vans whose drivers are more interested in getting close to the house they're working in than the pavement obstruction they cause. I often see schoolkids in a line of 3 walking up the road because they can't walk in a group on the pavement. On several occasions as a jogger, I have had to avoid cars who either don't look properly, or think they have a greater right to drive on the the footpath to park than me. So, from my experience, which clearly differs from yours, while the risk from pavement parking is different, it exists.

Our town centre is a pedestrian zone with shared use by pedestrians and cyclists and limited use to motor vehicles. Pedestrians and cyclists mix legally freely and easily, which makes me wonder if it's the illegality of pavement cycling rather than the actual risk that gets people's backs up.

Marco_Panettone

It's also illegal to drive on the pavement, but every single car parked there has done so.

Cornucopia

Once again, I'd point out that in many locations, pavement parking is mandated or permitted. This is indicated by the parking "box" being painted on the pavement, and the small blue pavement-parking signs on posts or lampposts.

silverwhistle

brat wrote: »

I ride on rural roads, and these drivers are often local. If I catch them offending when on duty, then my discretion tolerances will reflect my previous experience of them.

Just seen your reply, thanks.

I was at football training in the local park last night and 3 kids, helmetless, came through it racing each other on their mini bikes and showing a complete disregard for safety of themselves or others. I just commented "Oh look, organ donors". Another player said "Wasn't the last one so-and-so?". Yes, said her friend, and as a PCSO she seemed to be making a mental note.;-)

Johno100

Cornucopia wrote: »

Once again, I'd point out that in many locations, pavement parking is mandated or permitted. This is indicated by the parking "box" being painted on the pavement, and the small blue pavement-parking signs on posts or lampposts.

And in many other areas outside of London, as long as a clear obstruction isn't being caused, the authorities turn a blind eye to pavement parking as it aids the free passage of traffic.

silverwhistle

Cornucopia wrote: »

Once again, I'd point out that in many locations, pavement parking is mandated or permitted.

We aren't talking about where it's allowed, obviously. Your point is irrelevant as those signs only appear where the pavement is sufficiently wide to allow the free passage of pedestrians, pram users etc.

brat

Cornucopia wrote: »

Once again, I'd point out that in many locations, pavement parking is mandated or permitted.

As is cycling. Is this relevant?