How we are perceived & Mob mentality

[Tangled Metal]

To the older gentleman riding his road bike excessively fast on the millennium route at Woody's near Lancaster can I ask you to slow down on mixed use paths?

My lad has only just left his stabilizers behind. He loves riding with a passion verging on obsession (hmmm he's like me). However he still has spills. Things like a ridiculously speeding man in baggy trackies on a decent road bike rushing suddenly past him way too close tends to affect his balance. Please do not reduce any other kid to tears again!

Sorry! Rant over. Most cyclists are great human beings with compassion towards their own. It is very rare round here to come across complete nobs on a bike. However places to ride away from cars like that mixed use path or Morecambe promenade does draw in some roadies without common sense who just see these routes as car free and a good route to get a good speed up. There is no strava segment there to the best of my knowledge. If there are then they should be removed on safety grounds.

Anyway, no matter about the truth of the OP's story cyclists get the blame for things and mob rule doesn't help with any situation with an easily identified out group. Also as cyclists we perhaps need to be doing things right above and beyond what other groups do. Be more respectful of others than they are of you. It's a sad fact ppl are more likely to criticise cyclists than other road users. In some cases that criticism is valid.

[mjr]

To the older gentleman riding his road bike excessively fast on the millennium route at Woody's near Lancaster can I ask you to slow down on mixed use paths?

No, you can't because that's a foolish request in at least two major ways: firstly, "mixed use paths" generally don't exist - that's an anti-cyclist propaganda term which tries to convey that people shouldn't really expect to cycle normally there despite many so-called spaces being paid for by cycling budgets. Most of them are cycle tracks, bridleways or simply highways. Reject the politics of "mixed use" or "shared use" and call it by a name that makes it clear cycling is legitimate. If the route is too busy for its size, then a footway should be built alongside a decently-wide cycle track. If there's not enough space for that, then a bypass cycle track should be built to serve that route and attract faster riders away. Push for the solutions rather than just saying slow/stop/no/don't/why-don't-you-drive-a-car to cycling.

Secondly, I suspect your core problem with him isn't his speed. You probably would be unhappy if he passed your lad close at only 2mph speed difference, but it doesn't really matter to you what speed that guy does when no-one is around. So ask him to overtake people more considerately?

Please don't join in with the anti-cycling madness of suggesting that everyone should only ever cycle at walking pace with a man with a red flag ahead of them or if they dare to want to do 15mph to get somewhere in reasonable time then they should go ride out in 60/70mph heavy traffic. It's attitudes like that which hinder cycling support in this country.

[tykeboy2003]

Today, in a busy Hampshire shopping street I am riding along and see an elderly man fall over. He was with his wife at the time so I pulled over, got off the bike and tried to give some assistance by offering to call an ambulance. A few people walk past as I'm getting the phone out of the bag and a man stops and begins shouting at me. I'm being accused of riding on the pavement and running the gentleman over. Of course, the gentleman begins to get a little distressed and a couple more people stop.

Before I know it there is a mob of about five or six accusing me of this. Men and women. I try to explain, all the while this is delaying me from using the phone to call for help, and in the end the wife of the gentleman suggests I should leave for my own safety (one of the men in the group began prodding me in the chest).

I rode away.

I dont feel good about this. I feel like things have changed for us. Sorry for this being my first post, but I dont feel I can continue riding (I've used it for years to get to work and occasionally the shops). Drivers have been slowly getting closer and more dangerous, I know there are those that stubbornly suggest not giving up, but I just feel I can't put myself (or my family) through this. Even when its not the traffic its the attitudes of people who seem to assume you;re up to no good.

The swear filter on this forum prevents me from properly expressing my disgust at the attitude of these idiots.

Don't let it stop you, every time somebody is dissuaded from cycling by such obnoxious people the roads become incrementally more dangerous for those that continue to ride. The only way to beat them is to carry on regardless.

[Tangled Metal]

To the older gentleman riding his road bike excessively fast on the millennium route at Woody's near Lancaster can I ask you to slow down on mixed use paths?

No, you can't because that's a foolish request in at least two major ways: firstly, "mixed use paths" generally don't exist - that's an anti-cyclist propaganda term which tries to convey that people shouldn't really expect to cycle normally there despite many so-called spaces being paid for by cycling budgets. Most of them are cycle tracks, bridleways or simply highways. Reject the politics of "mixed use" or "shared use" and call it by a name that makes it clear cycling is legitimate. If the route is too busy for its size, then a footway should be built alongside a decently-wide cycle track. If there's not enough space for that, then a bypass cycle track should be built to serve that route and attract faster riders away. Push for the solutions rather than just saying slow/stop/no/don't/why-don't-you-drive-a-car to cycling.

Secondly, I suspect your core problem with him isn't his speed. You probably would be unhappy if he passed your lad close at only 2mph speed difference, but it doesn't really matter to you what speed that guy does when no-one is around. So ask him to overtake people more considerately?

Please don't join in with the anti-cycling madness of suggesting that everyone should only ever cycle at walking pace with a man with a red flag ahead of them or if they dare to want to do 15mph to get somewhere in reasonable time then they should go ride out in 60/70mph heavy traffic. It's attitudes like that which hinder cycling support in this country.

Sorry for being a bit slow on tyre uptake here. Are you justifying his inappropriate speed by correcting my use of words in describing it as a mixed use path?

First off it was first a permitted footpath along an access route for United utilities service vehicles that later got upgraded as part of a millennium project to create access along the river Lune. As part of that it got access for cyclists and extended along the line of an old rail line.

Second there's a lot of use from cyclists, walkers, runners and even kayakers walking to get to the access point above the weirs. All the many years I've been along that route this cyclist was the first case I've seen of outright dangerous cycling on that path/route/byway or whatever you want to call it.

It was dangerous for me as a 6'5" tall pedestrian as it was for ask users including other cyclists he whizzed past. There really is no excuse or justification for that cyclist's actions. To even try and justify it you are blindly following the pathetic mantra some have which is to blindly defend cyclists from.criticism no matter what they do. I for one will criticise anyone as I see fit. If there is bad behaviour from anyone it should be highlighted and corrected if it can be. Unfortunately I was not able to do that, he was too far away by the time I could react.

This was a wide, tarmac route and that guy chose to ride it significantly faster than any other cyclist and close to other more vulnerable users. As cyclists on this forum we have often argued that those road users capable of more damage to other users should take more care of those more vulnerable than they. How was my post different from that? That cyclist would have caused me harm if he'd hit me let alone what damage he'd cause to a 4 year old.

Jeez! Defend the indefensible here, then I'm sure you'll use similar sentiments as I have used to criticise motorists on other threads. Is that not hypocrisy?

[mjr]

Sorry for being a bit slow on tyre uptake here. Are you justifying his inappropriate speed by correcting my use of words in describing it as a mixed use path?

No, I'm saying you're wrong in two ways, unhelpfully focusing on two things which aren't really the problem and should be calling on him to overtake safely instead.

I don't see what tyres have got to do with it.

It sounds like the cyclist was in the wrong but it was the dangerous overtaking more than anything.

[landsurfer]

Sorry for being a bit slow on tyre uptake here. Are you justifying his inappropriate speed by correcting my use of words in describing it as a mixed use path?

No, I'm saying you're wrong in two ways, unhelpfully focusing on two things which aren't really the problem and should be calling on him to overtake safely instead.

I don't see what tyres have got to do with it.

+1 mjr...
Safe overtaking is the real issue not speed ...

[ossie]

Sorry for being a bit slow on tyre uptake here. Are you justifying his inappropriate speed by correcting my use of words in describing it as a mixed use path?

No, I'm saying you're wrong in two ways, unhelpfully focusing on two things which aren't really the problem and should be calling on him to overtake safely instead.

I don't see what tyres have got to do with it.

It sounds like the cyclist was in the wrong but it was the dangerous overtaking more than anything.

Overtaking safely should involve the cyclist slowing down and using appropriate speed for the conditions of the path / road / track which I'm quite sure was the issue here.

If it was on a road that cyclist would have been subject to the Road Traffic Act. Any reason you see fit to think that when off road the manner of cycling should differ ?

[Tangled Metal]

There cyclist was doing 2 things wrong. First was his speed which was significantly higher than any other user of that path (byway or whatever the correct word for it is). That in itself is dangerous considering the variety of users.

Second fault is the way he chose to ride his bike close to a very young child on a pedal bike when approaching from behind. Basically it frightened the child and caused him to spill.

I've had a car roll downhill such that his revs were low then when less than a metre away the driver violently used his horn. That nearly caused me to lose control and go under his inside front wheel. That scared the whatnots out of me and I guess that's what my son felt. Inconsiderate and unnecessary considering there was only him and my son there and it was a wide path.

So what is really wrong with my post other than semantics of the what that route is called and the way my phone auto-correct replaces the with tyre? Oh I know, you can't criticise cyclists for their behaviour on a bike on this forum. Cyclists cannot be criticised, even if they are at fault and that fault is similar to what we all complain that cars do. Am I correct about that? Seriously?

So, mjr what is right about that cyclist's riding behaviour? Excessive speed, check. Close pass, check. Inconsiderate riding, check. Injured path user left crying, check. Tell me again why I can't find fault with that cyclist! I really must be slow with this because I can not see any reason to believe that cyclist was not at fault, was not inconsiderate and was not worthy of criticism.

[[XAP]Bob]

Find fault by all means - but find the right fault - poor overtaking

[Tangled Metal]

Poor overtaking at speed due to lack of consideration for other path users. Is that not a more complete description of the cyclist's fault? If you forget the speed you are downplaying the risk. If you add speed and close passing you get the third fault of being inconsiderate to other users of that route.

Try as you might I will not accept that the only fault of that cyclist was the close passing. Whilst there's no speed limit sign or speed limit on that path it is common sense to not ride your bike at a speed where you can not react to what is happening around you fast enough. My boy can move a metre to one side very quickly. I've experienced that when I've ridden next to him. He looks behind himself without mastering the skill of maintaining a straight line. It's a sudden change of direction that even expecting it I struggle to avoid a collision. That's at very slow speeds. If I was doing 15mph, or more likely significantly more than that like this cyclist, I would definitely hit him.

So please explain to me how speed has no contribution to the danger this cyclists presents to other path users?

[mjr]

Overtaking safely should involve the cyclist slowing down and using appropriate speed for the conditions of the path / road / track which I'm quite sure was the issue here.

So you don't think the closeness of the pass was anything to do with it?

If it was on a road that cyclist would have been subject to the Road Traffic Act. Any reason you see fit to think that when off road the manner of cycling should differ ?

Any reason you see fit to think that I think that?

So please explain to me how speed has no contribution to the danger this cyclists presents to other path users?

Speed at the overtake does contribute. Speed when he's on a section with no other users is irrelevant. So please explain why you only asked him to slow down, rather than to stop riding dangerously or to take more care when overtaking?

I neither justify nor defend his actions. It's fine to criticise him, but for crying out loud, criticise him for the key problem rather than repeating typical anti-cycling claptrap.

[Tangled Metal]

Speed alone was a problem though. He was not riding on a path without people, that just has no bearing on this case. Even if he passed on the other side of the path he was still riding at a dangerous speed.

Look, how can I put it any clearer? An idiot was riding a bike at a speed that he could not react to anything that happens. There's dogs, kids of all ages running/playing/riding bikes, adults riding leisurely along the route, adult walkers and joggers all out to enjoy the nice weather along a path in the country, next to the river and near enough to town to easily reach. Any one of those users could appear from the side suddenly. Whilst they need to look where they're going too they'll be looking for people passing at the typical speeds for their activity. Certainly not someone doing the speed he was.

Taking aside the close pass in our case you have the speed issue. In my view that is a significant issue. I really struggle to see your argument that seems to say close pass is dangerous and is the main danger so was the only danger or issue with his riding. That just seems wrong headed to me. All the dangers he presented are worthy of consideration and criticism.

Straw poll, what do you think the issue was with this cyclists?
1) Close pass.
2) Close pass and speed
3) Close pass, speed and lack of consideration for other users of the route.

[jgurney]

I think that this man may well have been riding at an inappropriate speed and/or too close. However it is a broader issue which is really causing the debate here.

What has riled several posters is that you seem to be claiming that cyclists and pedestrians should conduct themselves in quite different ways depending on the presence or absence or motor traffic. In the original post you specifically urged the rider should slow down on "mixed-use paths", but seem by that term to mean ones with actually less mixed use in that motor traffic is excluded. You seem to be reflecting a belief that while on a general-purpose carriageway without a footway, pedestrians should walk on to the right, look around carefully before crossing, keep children and dogs under control, etc, once motor traffic is removed them even on a road of just the same width, etc, it becomes perfectly OK for pedestrians to wander about on the left, right or centre, let dogs run lose, let kids run or ride about in little circles, etc, and that any cyclists present should expect this and are expected to ride slowly to allow for it. In effect this is saying that motorists are entitled to a lot more priority than are cyclists, and naturally many cyclists do not like that idea.

Perhaps the reference to the spot being a path was an irrelevance and you really mean that you would have objected to his speed just as much had it been in a general-purpose road. I think it is your implication that had the occasional car been using the route as well then that would have changed everything that is causing the rumpus.

[Tangled Metal]

Actually that's not true. I'm advocating the cyclist rides in a safe manner according to what is around him and the route he's using. If he wants to ride as fast as that I would suggest a mixed use path isn't the right place. It's about not being inconsiderate and dangerous.

To give this a twist. If this was a country road and he was a motorist would you think it ok to speed round bends and close pass cyclists or pedestrians? I expect cyclists to do only what I expect motorists to do. That is use your mode of conveyance in a manner that is safe and considerate for you and others. That is ride/drive safely appropriate to the conditions, route and other users of that route. He was not doing that and in reckon you would not be defending a motorist who did the equivalent on the road if I criticised him like I have.

Put simply I hold cyclists, motorists, horse riders, pedestrians, etc. to the same standard. Safe for them and for other users of that route.

BTW I try to practise what I preach but I do make mistakes at times. I acknowledge it if I can with the recipient of my bad judgement and personally guilt creeps in but I learn from it. This cyclist did not learn or acknowledge anything. He carried on in the same manner. It was his choice and style to ride like that. Anything short of an accident or confrontation isn't going to change that.

So please continue justifying his actions or criticising my opinion and posts on the matter. It only diverts away from the reality that motorists and cyclists can be at fault. If you can't accept that for both then I've think this debate has no way forward.

[661-Pete]

Can we get back to the original topic please?

Some doubts have been expressed as to whether the OP is genuine. Certainly, as others have said, some more details including the locality, would be helpful. I would also ask 'Ulinga', if he/she returns to this forum: what were you wearing at the time? This is not a fatuous question, it has some relevance.