Cycling UK Forum

reohn2 wrote:I think we as a group are,in that we're,to a greater or lesser extent despised at worst and unliked at best,by elements of every other type of road user.
We need to ask ourselves why that is,sometimes it's unfounded and sometimes justified.It's some cyclists actions that define that justification.
I can't help other road users prejudices or other cyclists bad cycling, but I can as a cyclist go some way to try to dispel them by being courteous and considerate to others.

honesty wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I think we as a group are,in that we're,to a greater or lesser extent despised at worst and unliked at best,by elements of every other type of road user.
We need to ask ourselves why that is,sometimes it's unfounded and sometimes justified.It's some cyclists actions that define that justification.
I can't help other road users prejudices or other cyclists bad cycling, but I can as a cyclist go some way to try to dispel them by being courteous and considerate to others.

I work in IT. It is a known thing that IT is only noticed by staff when it doesn't work. People can go 364 days of the year with a fully working computer and they don't think of IT once or thank the people responsible for it, on the one day it breaks IT support are the devil incarnate and all the worlds woes are their fault.

its the same with cyclists.

[XAP]Bob wrote:I regularly see wheelchair users on the local path, not on the railway line 'cos that's almost impossible for them to access... except at one end (those anti cycle barriers don't only stop us)

honesty wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I think we as a group are,in that we're,to a greater or lesser extent despised at worst and unliked at best,by elements of every other type of road user.
We need to ask ourselves why that is,sometimes it's unfounded and sometimes justified.It's some cyclists actions that define that justification.
I can't help other road users prejudices or other cyclists bad cycling, but I can as a cyclist go some way to try to dispel them by being courteous and considerate to others.

I work in IT. It is a known thing that IT is only noticed by staff when it doesn't work. People can go 364 days of the year with a fully working computer and they don't think of IT once or thank the people responsible for it, on the one day it breaks IT support are the devil incarnate and all the worlds woes are their fault.

its the same with cyclists.

reohn2 wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:
There should be no hierarchy at all, but reasonable shared use.

It is no-one's "turf", and anyone who claims or thinks that any single group has more "right" to use or act in an unsafe manner is being unhelpful to say the least.

I think it only fair to be considerate to walkers on shared paths,consideration means being prepared to give way,slow down and even stop for families and dog walkers,etc.This would be the same as a car driving through crowded town centres at a reasonable speed (I know this doesn't happen most of the time,but IMHO it should,cars should forced to slow to sub 20mph where appropriated)
I agree about "turf" TBH it's everyone's "turf" but in the presence of cyclists the pedestrian is the vulnerable road/path user and as such should be given priority.

reohn2 wrote:

Mind you we must be unique!

I think we as a group are,in that we're,to a greater or lesser extent despised at worst and unliked at best,by elements of every other type of road user.
We need to ask ourselves why that is,sometimes it's unfounded and sometimes justified.It's some cyclists actions that define that justification.
I can't help other road users prejudices or other cyclists bad cycling, but I can as a cyclist go some way to try to dispel them by being courteous and considerate to others.

MikeF wrote:A bell is a great asset and will give 5 to 10 seconds warning - pedestrians may not always hear it, but if they don't you also can be prepared that they are not aware of your presence.....

reohn2 wrote:I find the human voice to be more acceptable to pedestrians.

661-Pete wrote:

reohn2 wrote:I find the human voice to be more acceptable to pedestrians.

It's also more acceptable to horses! A bell can spook a horse, but a human voice usually doesn't.

I don't use a bell, partly because they take up precious real estate on the handlbar, but also because the 'compulsory' bell on new bikes is such a pusillanimous affair, you'd get a better 'ding' by tapping a spoon on the handlebar. I'm also of the 'excuse me' persuasion, and I find it generally pays dividends (a smile from a pedestrian you're passing, makes up for a hundred scowls...).

Mark1978 wrote:Cyclists have some of the road network and cycle paths,

it's the one place where cycles should have priority!

reohn2 wrote:

it's the one place where cycles should have priority!

But the path in question isn't a cyclepath exclusively,it's a shared use path and as such pedestrians should have priority.

[XAP]Bob wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

it's the one place where cycles should have priority!

But the path in question isn't a cyclepath exclusively,it's a shared use path and as such pedestrians should have priority.

And the pedestrian should be ceding passage to the disabled pedestrian (blind, deaf, CP, wheelchair/ whatever).

It's not a question of who has priority - but to whom do you cede position