Shared Path Abuse...Unusual Complainer..

[Bonefishblues]

[quote="Username"
Should have replied <inappropriate phrase removed>

When I cycled passed someone on a canal path a while back, I said "cheers" as she moved to the side to let me pass. No sooner had I done that she started ranting about me not making a noise. I replied with extreme profanity and a fingered gesture over my shoulder. I didnt even bother to stop while doing so. I bet that ruined her day, the fat old witch lol!

Why?
Do you think your foul mouthed (not to say sexist) response is going to improve her feelings about cyclists?

We have enough difficulties with the general attitude of the public towards cyclists.
More fodder for the tabloids.

Agreed, Poster should be ashamed of the word they used. I haven't seen that term used in many years. We've moved on as a society, they clearly haven't.

...and then as a little icing on the cake, we get another example of their approach.

Embarassing.

[reohn2]

Should have replied <inappropriate phrase removed>
When I cycled passed someone on a canal path a while back, I said "cheers" as she moved to the side to let me pass. No sooner had I done that she started ranting about me not making a noise. I replied with extreme profanity and a fingered gesture over my shoulder. I didnt even bother to stop while doing so. I bet that ruined her day, the fat old witch lol!

Why?
Do you think your foul mouthed (not to say sexist) response is going to improve her feelings about cyclists?

We have enough difficulties with the general attitude of the public towards cyclists.
More fodder for the tabloids.

I agree.
If I encounter problems with anyone when cycling,should it be my fault make a point of begging their pardon and apologising.If they're of a negative mind toward me I make a point of asking why and trying to smooth their attitude,more often than not we part on good terms.
However,very occassionally there is no pleasing some people and if they insist on being rude and insulting without reason they'll receive the same back,and I make a point of never stopping to argue a point with a female who is alone.

[Tangled Metal]

Why waste time discussing the person's issues with you? You're riding a bike, just ride away and forget him / her. It'll probably annoy them more if you totally ignore them. If it doesn't then it'll make not inflame the situation.

[reohn2]

Why waste time discussing the person's issues with you? You're riding a bike, just ride away and forget him / her. It'll probably annoy them more if you totally ignore them. If it doesn't then it'll make not inflame the situation.

Because I like to make peace if I can,and for me to understand them and why they're like they are.It also gives me chance to show them cyclists aren't the monsters they think we are

[BakfietsUK]

Pathological ignorance and an inability to perceive reality. In complete denial and up for confrontation even if there is no basis in fact. A person who probably does not realise the pathos of their "position" and certainly has no awareness of how utterly ridiculous they sound.

Result - Bothersome to be around, but I guess quite easy to dismiss and bracket off as a crackpot.

[Username]

Why?
Do you think your foul mouthed (not to say sexist) response is going to improve her feelings about cyclists?

We have enough difficulties with the general attitude of the public towards cyclists.
More fodder for the tabloids.[/quote]

[quote="Bonefishblues wrote:

Why?
Do you think your foul mouthed (not to say sexist) response is going to improve her feelings about cyclists?

We have enough difficulties with the general attitude of the public towards cyclists.
More fodder for the tabloids.

Agreed, Poster should be ashamed of the word they used. I haven't seen that term used in many years. We've moved on as a society, they clearly haven't.

...and then as a little icing on the cake, we get another example of their approach.

Embarassing.

That word wasn't in the swear filter, maybe it should have been but point taken.

[quote="reohn2 wrote:

Why?
Do you think your foul mouthed (not to say sexist) response is going to improve her feelings about cyclists?

We have enough difficulties with the general attitude of the public towards cyclists.
More fodder for the tabloids.

I agree.
If I encounter problems with anyone when cycling,should it be my fault make a point of begging their pardon and apologising.If they're of a negative mind toward me I make a point of asking why and trying to smooth their attitude,more often than not we part on good terms.
However,very occassionally there is no pleasing some people and if they insist on being rude and insulting without reason they'll receive the same back,and I make a point of never stopping to argue a point with a female who is alone.

I use very simple logic. That being if somebody offends me, I will offend them back, usually by being vulgar because it is very potent. Just look at the responses here. Sure enough that person wont think better of cyclists, but clearly they never would have anyway. That isolated incident is contrary to how others behave. I often get an acknowledgement of appreciation for slowing down, pulling in etc. A little respect can go a long way, but so can disrespect.

[Flinders]

There are places for walkers where cycles are not allowed. I think it is now time to make cycle paths places for cycles where pedestrians (and others not cyclists) are not allowed.

At the very least, on dedicated cycle tracks, pedestrians should be the ones there on sufferance who have to give way, just as cyclists are there on sufferance on bridleways and on shared paths and have to give way to walkers and horses. And dogs should either be on a short lead, or banned.

[meic]

. I think it is now time to make cycle paths places for cycles where pedestrians are not allowed.

They would have to be new ones because the pedestrians have at least equal rights to the existing ones (even walkers taking their dogs for a toilet trip do!)

It would be an interesting experiment but where is there enough cycling traffic flow to justify the expense of a dedicated lane which excludes pedestrians?

[Ben@Forest]

Hi,
Man in a wheel chair.

This reminds me of an anecdote related in Nick Hornby's 'Fever Pitch' - which, for those of you who don't know, is about his obsession with football. While at a match he hears racist abuse (to the players) behind him, he turns round to remonstrate with the offender and finds he is berating a blind man. His incredulity is palpable - a blind racist!

Oddly the ill-informed abuse of cyclists seems to be getting worse, you think it might lessen with more people riding, but it seems to have triggered more reactions in others. At the weekend we stopped at the same cafe twice (hilly loop in between). On the first occasion a group of elderly women on the table next to us were loudly and lengthily moaning about cyclists (spurred by the number of bikes locked outside - which was four). I made an overloud and pointed comment at which one of the women shrieked with laughter while the others all trooped outside quietly.

When we returned we sat at an outside table being vacated by a group of motorcyclists - there are always more motorcyclists than cyclists at this cafe - and one of them made the inevitable comment about cyclists not paying for use of the road. I said something (polite) but he was already striding away. I just don't think I heard this level of abuse even 10 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.

[jgurney]

. I think it is now time to make cycle paths places for cycles where pedestrians are not allowed.

They would have to be new ones because the pedestrians have at least equal rights to the existing ones

Do you mean in the same sense that they have rights to walk in all carriageways in general, or that pedestrians have a greater right to walk in cycle paths than in general-purpose carriageways? If the later, what legislation creates that? Do pedestrians really have more rights to unreasonably obstruct the passage of non-motorised vehicles than of motorised ones?

It would be an interesting experiment but where is there enough cycling traffic flow to justify the expense of a dedicated lane which excludes pedestrians?

I have seen lots of examples of parallel footways and cycle paths.

[mjr]

If you look in the current edition of Walk there are articles discussing the concept of share use on FOOTPATH with cyclists. There are objection by some.

In some cases (paint+signs-only conversions), there will be objections by good cycling campaigns, too. I think the concept of share use is completely discredited and should be rejected whenever councils and so on try to use it - either it must come with a plan for rebuilding into a full cycleway/cycle track (with or without footway) or it's probably not worth having in the long term.

It would be an interesting experiment but where is there enough cycling traffic flow to justify the expense of a dedicated lane which excludes pedestrians?

Why does that matter? We don't judge the demand for a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river and definitely don't judge the demand for a motorway bridge by the number of people floating cars across! We need to build the infrastructure for the traffic we plan to use it.

[nez]

People just presume things. I yelled at a young woman walking eyes-down-on-a-phone towards me the other day - we were on a pedestrian/cycle bridge over a river. A man nearby tried to tell me off. 'She's wearing earphones,' I said.

[sirmy]

If that happened where I live they'd probably be a local councillor, the last refuge for the congenitally thick