Cyclist at Pedestrian Crossing

And I'm not negating your experience, because different areas are very different and I think London is unique here. Just that I personally haven't ever seen a car or van drive on or over a pavement.

That's very true, but vehicles parked on a pavement (which does make me angry) is very different from vehicles actively driving on a pavement. I've never seen a car actively driving down a pavement, but with cyclists it's a daily occurrence. If I see a parked car on a pavement then I have time to react and plan accordingly, that choice is denied me when a cyclist races past or into me on a pavement because it happened too quickly for me to be able to react, and that's what makes it so very dangerous and frightening.

And with all due respect unless you're a profoundly disabled person who is forced to be exclusively a pedestrian and doesn't have access to any form of vehicle (not counting public transport) I don't think it's okay to claim that disabled non-drivers are exaggerating the risk that cyclists pose.

it might be wrong too!!!

Own goal. Not much point in a pithy post if it doesn't make sense.

It is clearly long for cyclists to endanger other road-users just as it is clearly wrong for other road-users to exaggerate the danger that cyclists pose.

@Flickersy

"Cyclists aren't the problem."

Yes, they very much are when they decide to ride through a red light at a pedestrian crossing when pedestrians are actually using it! (The OP's point!)

Motor vehicles of all kinds are left on the pavement where I am. It makes it impossible to pass at certain points and they block dropped kerbs so disabled people are buggered.

I have often had to stop or get out of the way because a delivery driver has thrown his van up onto the pavement where I'm walking.

On Thursday I was walking home and a driver decided to take a shortcut over a pedestrianised block of a street.

Cyclists aren't the problem.

Where do you live where you regularly see vans driving down the pavement??

I've never in my entire life seen a car drive over a pavement, and only maybe twice seen a car break a red light. With cyclists, it's a dozen times a day at least.

I don't choose to be exclusively a pedestrian, yet I am forced into very risky and dangerous situations by cyclists illegally entering what are legally NOT shared spaces but spaces that are supposed to be for the exclusive use of pedestrians which are illegal for cyclists to use.

I realise this, but actually where I live I am affected far more by cars and vans on pavements than cyclists.

Indeed, and drivers kill people on a regular basis (every day, multiple times). Cyclists do not, despite claims to the contrary. It is incredibly rare.

That doesn't mean that they are not superannoying at times. I hate hate hate the dinging bells at you especially when the path is perfectly wide enough for everyone. Some cyclists seem to think you should stop for them even though there's enough space. Nope, if there's enough space you slow down and pass carefully.

Cyclists choose to cycle, knowing the risks that cars pose when cyclists choose to enter a space that is shared with cars.

I don't choose to be exclusively a pedestrian, yet I am forced into very risky and dangerous situations by cyclists illegally entering what are legally NOT shared spaces but spaces that are supposed to be for the exclusive use of pedestrians which are illegal for cyclists to use.

Cyclists are so wrapped up in the mindset of seeing themselves as the victims or potential victims of cars, they don't stop to think what a threat and how frightening and intimidating they are to pedestrians.

I wish the UK had better infrastructure for cycling the way other European countries do, because it would make everyone safer. But we don't, and cyclists can make a choice, which I can't.

I, and I imagine many others, would have far more respect for cyclists in general if some of the cyclists on these threads would only acknowledge that poor road behaviour is unacceptable. It is the attempts and need to justify such behaviour that I find far more damning than anything a person posts about an encounter with one cyclist. It does come across as rather arrogant and I believe that influences cyclists' experiences on the road far more so than an "unchecked" poster's comments. I cycle btw!

Some cyclists react this way because they're aware of the effects such unchecked animosity has on their road using experience.

I couldn't agree more. The cyclists on these threads are always full of outrage and indignation because they CHOOSE to take any criticism personally. They justify their vitriol by claiming to be fed up of the antagonism towards cyclists, yet are all over such threads in an instant. If they are fed up, then don't read the threads or don't respond! Simple! Tbh, their responses do nothing to change any negative perceptions people may have. If anything, they reinforce them! I personally think they enjoy these threads!

Why is it acceptable to start threads that lump all cyclists together as an issue, but nobody does it with drivers?

People start threads complaining about drivers all the time, the difference is those threads aren't immediately jumped on by angry drivers saying:
Actually other things are more dangerous than cars.
You didn't actually die so no big deal.
Not All Drivers.
Drivers get hurt too.
Here's a video of someone who isn't a driver breaking the law and harming people.
It's okay for drivers to break the law because reasons.

And generally being hostile and aggressive to anyone and minimising the pain and trauma caused by illegal dangerous cycling.

The only reason people treat cyclists as one group is because they act like one group! If you stopped acting so outraged anytime anyone criticises a single cyclist (there have been loads of "AIBU to be upset by this one specific cyclist incident" which always end the same way, with the cycling brigade's hostility and defensiveness taking over) and started saying "yes dangerous illegal cycling is bad, I don't condone it" then we'd find it far easier to not see you as a single threatening mass who endanger us every single day and don't give a tiny shit about it.

Of course there isn't - it's just common practise amongst the minority of cyclists who are cunts.

I would happily join in on a thread moaning about "drivers" jumping temporary traffic lights after seeing that video. I said I have seen it myself and it's definitely more of a problem then drivers jumping normal lights. Obviously it's not all drivers. I don't do it. Plenty of others don't do it. But I wouldn't get offended at people saying about "drivers jumping temporary traffic lights" even though I don't do it. Its obviously a bigger issue than I thought.

Could be a lot of the same drivers OneTC - I'm not terribly far from Falkirk!

So should we now have a thread where we complain about how drivers are taking the piss? Given that it's fair game to complain about cyclists as one homogenous group?

Yeah but everyone sees one or 2 at every change of every temporary light don't they? I've had people overtake me so they can run the red after I've stopped for it plenty of times

That's utterly ridiculous and yes those drivers are terrible. Would be good if they could all be caught and fined. In 25 years of driving I've never seen that many. Absolutely awful behaviour from all of them.

pp is taking about this kind of thing. Yeah the lights could be faulty but it's much more likely it's just a load of entitled pricks taking the piss

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2068852/shocking-video-nine-drivers-jump-red-light-falkirk/amp/

The lights were fine - they had already been up for a week, and there was a long discussion about this particular incident on a local Facebook page. The drivers were just fed up of waiting - the queue was very long. I can completely understand their frustration (the saga of the temporary traffic lights is a long and unhappy one). But even though a lot of drivers did it, I still wouldn't try to start a thread 'negging' all drivers because of it.

It's possible those lights were timed wrong though. Temporary lights often are timed badly. You couldn't know if cars were going through on red unless you knew someone watching them from the other side and telling you when they changed.
But they often seem to time temporary traffic lights normal speed of cars. If there's heavier traffic cars are often going slower. So even though a car went over on green/amber by the time they've gone very slowly through the roadworks it's been green for ages at the other end. I've had it happen to me quite recently. I went through on green. Lots of cars behind me also got through. But we were driving behind a cyclist. The lights are not timed for a cyclist. And due to the roadworks we couldn't overtake. So by the time we all made it through the roadworks the lights on the other side had been green for ages. The cars waiting were swearing and gesticulating at us as we all finally made it past. It might have looked like loads of us jumped the lights. But we were all just stuck in the in between behind a slow vehicle.
Or its possible some people jumped the lights. I will admit I see that far more often at temporary lights than regular lights. (Not as many as 8 though!) Perhaps because drivers perceive the risk as lower as they know cars coming the other way cannot move until they have gone through. (Obviously I'm not saying this is right at all. I'm just pondering what their mindset could be). Also theres unlikely to be a camera on temporary lights. That could be another reason drivers jump them more often.

Why is it acceptable to start threads that lump all cyclists together as an issue, but nobody does it with drivers?

I live next to a four way junction, that is often (and I mean OFTEN!) blighted with temporary traffic lights. In the most recent wave, the lights were set back from the junction, the roads narrowed to one lane, and the lights were taking much too long to change. I have been in a queue of cars waiting at one light. The lights changed to green, but the cars kept coming from another direction. At least eight cars went through AFTER the lights had changed (and bear in mind that the lights take a while, so the number after they got a red light must have been at least half as much again) and only two cars managed to get through from the line of cars I was in. The lights were fully functional.

If I was to start a thread asking a question about it, effectively suggesting that there is an unknown rule for car drivers, I'm pretty sure I would get shouted down (completely fairly) for tarring them all the same. Why is it ok to do similar for cyclists? It never seems to be 'AIBU to be annoyed at this specific cyclist' but 'AIBU to think that cyclists think they own the roads' or similar.

To quote you.......

"the key word in that sentence is "almost"

Nothing happened."

So by your reasoning, a close by a motorist (i.e. "almost" hitting) a cyclist is not a problem because "nothing happened", same as a cyclist "almost" hitting a pedestrian is not a problem because "nothing happened".

Trams don't go on pavements.

Do those other countries not have disabled or elderly people then?