Cycling UK Forum

I could mention the 25% of London bus drivers who rlj but...beneath contempt and apt for ignoring.

hubgearfreak wrote:

Fonant wrote:Personally, I'd rather have a yob being yobbish on a bicycle than in a car.

Wildduck wrote:Treat it with the contempt is deserves.

yep & yep

I'd rather not have yobs being yobbish in any context if that's on the menu.

A madman's rant!
But I'm not sure I like Marieanne' defence of biker's behaviour either. Of riding on pavements she comments: 'I myself have only hit one pedestrian', as if that's reasonable and acceptable! Strewth!!!!

patmac wrote:A madman's rant!
But I'm not sure I like Marieanne' defence of biker's behaviour either. Of riding on pavements she comments: 'I myself have only hit one pedestrian', as if that's reasonable and acceptable! Strewth!!!!

C'mon we've all hit at least one haven't we?

I don't do pavements anymore but my 'victim' stepped off the kerb into the cycle lane whilst gabbing on her phone.

patmac wrote:A madman's rant!
But I'm not sure I like Marieanne' defence of biker's behaviour either. Of riding on pavements she comments: 'I myself have only hit one pedestrian', as if that's reasonable and acceptable! Strewth!!!!

Weren't you told upon your cyclist's induction? We are given a quota of one pedestrian per cyclist per year,

...provided that they be not game of leg or otherwise enfeebled.

My pedestrian near misses have always been people stepping into the road without looking. Even though I use a few stretches of pavement I've never had a near miss on one - if there's anyone around I simply slow down and say "excuse me" always works a treat.

The whole pavement issue is confused anyway. Where I live (Warrington) quite often a cycling lane on the road will end and and an arrow will take you up onto the pavement - sometimes this is marked dual use (not that pedestrians realise that) and sometimes not. If it's not marked and there's no "cyclists dismount" signs then for my money it's fair game.

If you barrel down a pavement with people on it (even dual use) then obviously you're asking for it, but proceed with caution and it seems fine to me.
Government advice to the police is only to prosecute cyclists on pavements when they're being reckless and endangering other users. Seem like a fair policy, perhaps it just requires enforcement.

kwackers wrote:If it's not marked and there's no "cyclists dismount" signs then for my money it's fair game.

The rest of your post - absolutely, but AFAIK the "cyclists dismount" signs are advisory and there is absolutely no obligation to dismount.

Alan D wrote:I had wondered if it would ever be appropriate when pulling alongside said youngster, to just mention that other road users are giving all cyclists some bad press because of such behaviour. If that does not impress, then something like, "next time you jump a red light, what is it going to feel like for the person who has to tell your Mum that you are dead?"
Alan

I did this a few months ago. I stopped at some lights, and was promptly overtaken by an RLJer - adult, well kitted-out, nice bike, clearly a frequent cyclist. Lights changed, I caught him up, and asked, as politely as I could, whether he considered that the rules applied to him. His reply was along the lines of "Thanks for your concern, but it's my life, and I'll ride how I like."
But with his disregard for rules, I'd far rather he was on a bike than driving a car. Maybe I should have told him that.

Gisen wrote:

kwackers wrote:the "cyclists dismount" signs are advisory and there is absolutely no obligation to dismount.

It is quite illegal to cycle on the footway under the 1835 Highway Act

The 1835 act dates from the time that it began to seem sensible to segregate the highway between horse riders and horse drawn vehicles on the one hand and pedestrians on the other. It was considered necessary to have penalties against people driving on the footway part of the highway. When motor vehicles and pedal cycles came along it seemed reasonable to treat them the same as the horse drawn vehicles.

"Cyclist dismount" signs, IMHO, are usually just a waste of space. They are usually stuck up where town planners can't think of any sensible signs.

How can this be explained?

Harlow cycle lane

I have cycled it (I just went to see how bad it really was) and it really is as silly as it looks. What's worse is all the signs saying that they spent £1 million making it. What's so galling is that Harlow actually has some decent cycle paths dating from the original New Town.

I read something the other day - perhaps in connection with the business in Bristol etc., that it has been agreed that CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs are to go and should be replaced by CYCLISTS GIVE WAY signs. Now, in my RtoR whenever I made suggestions about cycling provision, the highwaymen (sic) always told me that signs were a disproprtionately large part of the the cost of any project.

thirdcrank wrote:the highwaymen (sic) always told me that signs were a disproprtionately large part of the the cost of any project.

If the signage is a large proportion of the project it probably shows that the project is just tokenism!

thirdcrank wrote:I read something the other day - perhaps in connection with the business in Bristol etc., that it has been agreed that CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs are to go and should be replaced by CYCLISTS GIVE WAY signs. Now, in my RtoR whenever I made suggestions about cycling provision, the highwaymen (sic) always told me that signs were a disproprtionately large part of the the cost of any project.

"Cyclists give way" seems emminently sensible to me. Quite a lot of the shared use lanes near me end with the standard 'give way' dotted lines on painted on the floor, my assumption is that you're allowed to continue to cycle on the pavement but should give way to other users.
You can be fairly sure a successful prosecution under these circumstances would be impossible.

Roads are designed with cars in mind, as cyclists we expect some consideration from them. Pavements are designed with pedestrians in mind and likewise they should expect consideration from cyclists.
You'll never stop people cycling on pavements, the infrastructure is too confused, some people just aren't confident enough on the roads, there's no legal necessity for cyclists to have road knowledge (and unlikely to ever be) and sometimes the short cut they offer is just too tempting...
The current 'blind eye' approach by the authorities is imo the correct one, perhaps (like most traffic offenses) if it were actually enforced when cyclists ride dangerously it would be better both for us and for our image. Ultimately though the death toll on the roads has very little to do with cyclists and hence I suspect there are bigger fish to fry.

All imo of course.

I live in Bristol, cycle everywhere and don't own a car. This BEP rant, despite its obvious flaws, is centered around annoyance at cyclists not obeying the rules of the road. Now (and I fear for my reputation on this forum after saying this) I can't help agreeing with that sentiment (please note I'm saying sentiment, not agreeing word for word).

I understand the riding experience may be very different outside of Bristol, as not many cities and towns seem to have the sort of ridership (is that a word? if not I claim it!) that we do, but when on the road I am quite honestly amazed by the level of law breaking.

For anyone that knows Bristol, my communte takes me through the Cheltenham Road / Stokes Croft / Asheley Road junction. I stop at the lights at this junction every day and, sometimes, I feel like I'm the only person obeying the rules. Some cyclists don't stop at all, some wait until the pedestrian crossing signal and, what feels like precious few, wait for the green light. On this thread people have been suggesting that it is mainly the 'yoof' that behave like this but that's being unfair to the 'yoof' - cyclist of all ages, sex and social group go past me as I wait.

Further down the road, I often catch up with the people who jump the lights as they pootle along at half the speed of everyone else. This reminds me of a kind of driver I used to encounter back in the days when I did have a car. Others may also have experienced the spectre of the 40mph-ers - the drivers that do 40mph in both 60 and 30 zones. I always put that down to laziness at the time, assuming that the driver couldn't muster the mental effort to change gear. I've been wondering if this too is the case with the light-jumpers. Is it just too much effort to have to push off and get up to speed again?

Perhaps I'm just jealous and the boy inside me doesn't like watching people overtake. Perhaps my mother brought me up "proper" or is it just that there's some loophole that means we don't have to stop at lights?. I don't know, so I am genuinly asking this question of people reading this post: Do you always stop at lights, and if not why not?

My 'lights education' happened a few years ago. I'd stopped at a pedestrian crossing on a red light to let someone cross. As he got to the other side of the road, and was just about to step on to the pavement, the lights went orange. At that point I moved forward onto the crossing and began to ride away. What I didn't realise was that there was a copper on a motorcycle right behind me. He pulled me over and 'had a quiet word', as they say! I always stop at lights now, even when a blind man could see that all is clear. You never know who's behind you!