We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
Not a rant about cyclists - just a question
Options
Comments
-
On which basis - if a cyclist speeds through a zebra crossing with pedestrians on it and is within arm's reach then I'm OK to thump them as they go by?I need to think of something new here...0
-
On which basis - if a cyclist speeds through a zebra crossing with pedestrians on it and is within arm's reach then I'm OK to thump them as they go by?
Round our way they are so much more considerate on Pelican type crossings.
They wait until the pedestrian has passed the lane the cyclist is in then go through the red light. :T0 -
On which basis - if a cyclist speeds through a zebra crossing with pedestrians on it and is within arm's reach then I'm OK to thump them as they go by?
If you feel they are endangering you, self preservation such as pushing them away, yes, not punching them. Make sure you do it to cars who do it as well though. If you can reach to bang on a car then it is passing too close and endangering you because if you can reach it, it's in breach of the highway code rule to leave the same space as you would passing a car, generally taken as 1.5mSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Have actually done that - a heel of the hand fend-off as learnt on the rugby pitch.If you feel they are endangering you, self preservation such as pushing them away, yes, not punching them.
Have done that too. The ratio of cyclists in reach to cars/vans in reach is easily 8:1 (based on my walks across London). I suppose I should be grateful that at least some of them operate as Heliflyguy describes and try to sweep behind the pedestrians rather than across the toes :mad:Make sure you do it to cars who do it as well though.
Correct - but as prowla points out - if it happens when the cyclist wants to pass/ "filter" then the 1.5m suddenly becomes 0.5m...If you can reach to bang on a car then it is passing too close and endangering you because if you can reach it, it's in breach of the highway code rule to leave the same space as you would passing a car, generally taken as 1.5mI need to think of something new here...0 -
Correct - but as prowla points out - if it happens when the cyclist wants to pass/ "filter" then the 1.5m suddenly becomes 0.5m...
Not sure on the legality of this and I don't do it myself when cycling, but it's pretty obvious that filtering is safer for the cyclist than being overtaken at a given distance. The speed differentials are typically much smaller and if the car isn't moving then there's no chance that falling will put you under their wheels. No gusts of wind from the car passing at speed to worry about.
One of my friends had a pretty good guideline for passing cyclists - "I want to leave enough space so that if they fall over sideways I won't run over their head." That seems remarkably pragmatic to me! Especially given the number of potholes on the roads to avoid.0 -
H. The ratio of cyclists in reach to cars/vans in reach is easily 8:1 (based on my walks across London). I suppose I should be grateful that at least some of them operate as Heliflyguy describes and try to sweep behind the pedestrians rather than across the toes :mad:
And yet TFL data on accidents following red light jumping shows that cars cause the overwhelming majority of KSI incidents involving pedestrians, somewhere in the region of 70-80% (can't see the figures at the moment). Bikes were around 9-11%. If you still want to focus on bikes then more fool you.Correct - but as prowla points out - if it happens when the cyclist wants to pass/ "filter" then the 1.5m suddenly becomes 0.5m...
prowla has made his/her anti-cycling feelings well known. As I pointed out to them, if you cannot comprehend the difference between a cyclist filtering close to STATIC or VERY SLOW MOVING cars vs a car zooming along at 30, 40, 60 etc 1/2 a metre from a cyclist then frankly it's not worth trying to explain it.
On a bike filtering in traffic, we may be going 10-15+mph depending on conditions. A bike can stop quickly, usually has a pavement to escape to in an emergency etc and can safely pass those cars that are not moving even close because it's all under our own control. When a car goes that close it can result in you being knocked off or even an emergency reaction/fall off which can dump you in traffic.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Not sure on the legality of this and I don't do it myself when cycling, but it's pretty obvious that filtering is safer for the cyclist than being overtaken at a given distance.
Filtering is 100% legal, both for bikes and motorbikes, the highway code even warns drivers to be aware of it happeningSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I focus on bikes because in my experience of 20+ years of being a pedestrian in London, I have had far more near misses with bikes and 100% of the times I have been hit - it was a bike. I'd be a fool not to be suspicious of bikes when crossing roads - like the one I encountered on Tuesday evening on New Oxford Street; pelican crossing showing green man, pedestrians crossing in both directions, one bike has stopped but another sweeps past and dives between the pedestrians - just out of reach. Or the one early this morning on Woburn Place; zebra crossing, traffic has stopped in both directions and pedestrians have started to cross, bike decides to "filter" up the left of stopped traffic at normal speed and across my bow. I called him a habitual masturbator and he looked blankly back before trying to do the same thing at the next zebra crossing where he had to do an emergency stop to avoid hitting a pushchair.. If you still want to focus on bikes then more fool you.
How about 25 mph downhill, past a row of slow-moving traffic then cutting across the nose of a car at 90 degrees to pass on the other side while taking prime position on the "wrong" side of the white line? Then back again - cutting up the slower cyclist who had stayed filtering on the left?On a bike filtering in traffic, we may be going 10-15+mph depending on conditions.
I'm not anti-cyclist - I'm just anti-the minority of aggressive or arrogant or ignorant cyclists who present a danger to pedestrians, themselves and occasionally to motorists. The sort who seem to operate not on a basis of self-preservation but in a basis of "I'll go where I like unless something bigger is likely to hit me." Maybe London has a higher proportion of those.
And on the original point.... London has some really good cycle lanes (kerb separated ones) which seem to be used regularly. And some really badly designed and/or maintained ones where I can see clearly why cyclists don't bother. And some places where there is a wide enough space to make a pretty good shared-space lane but the council hasn't thought of it - even though cyclists do it anyway. But the one that puzzles me ( like the OP ) is by the Canning Town flyover with a new, clean, kerb-separated cycle lane and still some cyclists prefer to be in with the traffic.I need to think of something new here...0 -
Couldn't agree more NBLondon. Well said.
Very much my experience of being a pedestrian in a London. My two nearest misses were cyclists going fast - one the wrong way down a one way street.
Nor am I anti cyclist. I have plenty of friends who cycle and are considerate of cars, pedestrians and themselves. It does seem it may be a London thing - perhaps it's the faster pace of life there but there are a significant number of cyclists who only care about themselves.
And while the TfL figures state that they aren't going to take account of the (very) narrow and scary misses. Which, in my experience, are much more weighted towards cyclists who can weave in and out at speed with little regard for those left behind.0 -
I focus on bikes because in my experience of 20+ years of being a pedestrian in London, I have had far more near misses with bikes and 100% of the times I have been hit - it was a bike. I'd be a fool not to be suspicious of bikes when crossing roads - like the one I encountered on Tuesday evening on New Oxford Street; pelican crossing showing green man, pedestrians crossing in both directions, one bike has stopped but another sweeps past and dives between the pedestrians - just out of reach.
If the best you can do is personal anecdotes in the face of statistical research based on actual recorded data then I'm done. Cars kill more than 1 pedestrian a day (450 or so a year on average) and as I said, 70-80% of KSI incidents involving red light jumping road users are car drivers. Fear bikes all you like, it will be a car that hits you. I see far more cars jumping red lights (or speeding up on amber) and driving unsafely than bikes on my commute.How about 25 mph downhill, past a row of slow-moving traffic then cutting across the nose of a car at 90 degrees to pass on the other side while taking prime position on the "wrong" side of the white line? Then back again - cutting up the slower cyclist who had stayed filtering on the left?
Let's be honest that's the exception, not the norm, again single anecdoteswith a new, clean, kerb-separated cycle lane and still some cyclists prefer to be in with the traffic.
Cycle lanes are great but because they open up the roads for safer cycling they are used by slow moving / inexperienced cyclists. I have ridden in them on the rented bikes and I'd absolutely use the road if I was on my main road bike to avoid accidents with inexperienced cyclists/tourist who wobble all overSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards