To ask how we stop dangerous cyclists

Actually this is true although I rely less on my HA when I'm driving but I am wearing my glasses I don't need my glasses when I'm walking so I'm disadvantaged further

I think you misunderstood. I was responding to a poster comparing a pedestrian moving out of a cyclist's way to a cyclist moving out of a car's way. I can see how my comment didn't make that clear.

Cyclist and pedestrian path side by side clearly marked differences in colour and BIG painting of a bike on the bike side bike rides on the pedestrian side rings his bell aggressively telling us to move move MOVE!

Cyclist at the traffic lights goes infront and crosses as a pedestrian

Cyclist overtakes a horse dings his bell nearly loses his face gets his arse handed to him on the Facebook group for using a BRIDLEWAY as a racetrack

The middle one is daily at the bottom of my road same guy he also likes to ride up the middle of a road so you can't overtake him I'm near a police station so I'm hoping they catch him at it

If you are unable to move out of the way of a pedestrian you are going too fast.

Moving out of the way as a pedestrian typically takes one step, possibly two, to the side.

Moving out of the way as a cyclist typically means coming to a stop.

That's quite different.

Also, cars cause far more irritation to me than bikes. Because I see more of them and they never move out of the way when I want them to.

Where can I get my superhero powers?

I've got tinnitus and moderate hearing loss in the mid-highs. This means that whilst minding my own business walking on a path, I get all of the following amplified because they are in similar ranges;

Road noise. It's not all deep rumbling.
Bits of car stereos.
People speaking.
Any water on the road.
The wind across me, behind or towards me. The HA tries to allow for it, but it moves, as do I, so it's never coming in one fixed direction in relation to my position.
The leaves in the trees.
The tinnitus.
The sound of the HA itself. Slightly less annoying than the Tinnitus. But not by much.
The sound of my trousers, coat and bag as I walk.
My footsteps on the path. Worse with gravel or shared path textures.
My breathing.
Some birdsong. Which is quite nice.
The HA automatically switching to sounds in different directions and on/off depending upon what's going past, the weather, the predominant frequencies and whatever its programming deems appropriate.

And I'll add in something else that falls directly within the frequency range that the HA is already amplifying to an equal volume as all of those - a bicycle. The wheels, tyres and chain, like those other sounds I've listed, are slap bang in the frequencies that need to be amplified in order to understand human speech, particularly sibilance and voiced, unvoiced or where there's elision in consonants (plosives aren't too bad, but in fairness, they're also very easy to lipread). So they're drowned out by everything. Which means I'm unlikely to hear a bike coming, unlikely to hear a cyclist wittering behind me and the chances of actually being able to place a bell sound from behind as being behind and approaching is minimal.

I'm also walking forwards - walking backwards or repeatedly spinning around to see whether I can catch a cyclist I don't even know is there because of the rest of the noise is somewhat impractical. I do not have eyes in the back of my head, despite what my children and pets grew up believing, nor do I have rear view mirrors or glasses that give me the visual field of a rabbit.

You're approaching from an auditory dead spot and a visual blind spot but seem to think that none of that matters as somebody like me will have 'learned' to see more.

To become, as you so blithely declare in your repetition of the The Disabled Have Superpowers Ablelist trope, 'more observant' like 'most deaf people', is simply not true.

Yes thanks for that clarification- you put it much better than me 😃

Not quite right

In the UK, electric bikes (e-bikes) with a maximum power output of 250 watts or less are legally classed as Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs).

E-bikes with a higher power output or that can go faster than 15.5 miles per hour (mph) are classed as motorcycles or mopeds.

E-bikes that are not EAPCs must be registered and insured like mopeds.

You must have a driving license to ride a motorcycle or moped, and you must wear a crash helmet.

for instance with a 750W e-bike

You can use it on private land with the landowner's permission.

You can get an electric bike license to ride it on public roads.

The problem is that e-bikes that are over 250W are being sold on sites with 250 W e-bikes and people often don't know the law.

Your question is ridiculous and discriminatory.

Most deaf people have learned to be more observant as they are aware their loss of hearing means they are at a disadvantage regarding awareness.

Yes there are idiots in all kinds of transportation.

So deaf people shouldn't leave the house then?

The only legal e bikes are pedal assist, so you have to pedal or freewheel like a normal bike would. They are limited to 15 mph. The illegal ones are where you can be propelled without pedalling.

E scooters are illegal on public roads/paths unless they are public hire vehicles able to be hired on the street. They are easy to spot as they're covered in logos.

I think that proper electric bikes are limited in speed to X miles per hour, and only work when people are actually pedalling.

The delivery riders are riding jailbroken bikes which do not have a speed cap, and which they do not need to pedal - they are really motorbikes. And because of that the rider needs insurance, a helmet, lights. But there is such a plague of these bikes that the police can't cope.

Are they? The electric bikes? (That’s what they mainly have round here.)

And not to mention their illegal vehicles.

You need to reread my posts and stop impuning me.

I wouldn't behave the way you are implying and have never said I would. I do think wearing earpods so that you can't hear what is going on around you is foolish, it isn't safe for many reasons, it is annoying when pedestrians don't stick to their path and subsequent to that is you often can't get past. Just one reason is that you can't hear approaching cyclists, but neither can you hear people running up to you, or cars when crossing the road or people shouting to warn you of anything. We all need to act responsibly and that goes for every road user including pedestrians.

Debate is supposed to be two-way. No asking of clarifying questions? Just an ill-informed rant plopped and retire to a safe distance to watch the fireworks.

Agree - so many delivery cyclists round our way are out at night - no lights, no helmet, no hi-vis.

No, the most dangerous ones are the Deliveroo/JustEat riders on their jailbroken electric bikes, riding ridiculously quickly, no lights, no helmets. Total menace.

The vast majority of cyclists are not dangerous. The vast majority of cyclists you don't even notice them. Of the few cyclists you notice, they will be a mixture of assertive confident cyclists who know they have every right to be in your way if they have right of way in that situation, plus some genuinely dangerous cyclists. The confident assertive cyclists may well sometimes do a manuever that irritate a car driver but is the best decision for someone trying to survive in an exceptionally dangerous hostile environment where those in control of 1500kg of hurtling metal are trying to ignore their existence. The genuinely dangerous ones would also be genuinely dangerous car drivers if you took action to get them off their cycles and into a car which would be even more dangerous so probably best all round for them to stay on their bikes. Anything you do to attack the dangerous ones will actually have far greater effect on all the other perfectly sensible cyclists that you have no reason to notice, causing much more harm than good. A far better use of resources is to invest in reducing car use, slowing down car traffic and creating more space for cycles so that the risky situations that can sometimes only be survived via a risky maneuver may get minimised

Why should a pedestrian move out of the way for a cyclist when cyclists refuse to do the same for cars?

All road users could do with being more considerate, but it needs to start with cyclists because by far, it’s them that causes the most irritation.

Sustrans who maintain a lot of shared used paths also say to use a bell

• When riding a bike, ring a bell well in advance if approaching people from behind, but remember, this might not always be enough to alert people that you’re coming.

Also;

All users of shared-use paths have responsibilities for the safety of others they are sharing space with.

So I would say as well as cyclists needing to use a bell to warn others of their presence there is a responsibility for pedestrians to be aware. I do regularly look behind me when walking on a shared use path. I would not use headphones.

I find it really odd that an OP is expected to keep replying to people on the thread rather than just read the replies. Given a certain level of hostility, just reading makes even more sense

Sorry for long post. This is actually what the highway code says to cyclists on shared paths,

Cycle Tracks. .... Cycle tracks may run alongside footpaths or pavements and be separated by a feature such as a change of material, a verge, a kerb or a white line. You MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath.
Some cycle tracks shared with pedestrians will not be separated by such a feature. On such shared use routes, you should always take care when passing pedestrians, especially children, older or disabled people, and allow them plenty of room. Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary
AND
Sharing space with pedestrians, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles.When riding in places where sharing with pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles is permitted, take care when passing pedestrians and horse riders, especially children, older adults or disabled people. Slow down when necessary and let them know you are there; for example, by ringing your bell (it is recommended that a bell is fitted to your bike), or by calling out politely.
Remember that pedestrians may be deaf, blind or partially sighted and that this may not be obvious.
Do not pass pedestrians, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles closely or at high speed, particularly from behind.

AND to PEDESTRIANS on shared paths:
Routes shared with cyclists. Cycle tracks may run alongside footpaths or pavements and be separated from them by a feature such as a change of material, a verge, a kerb or a white line. Such routes may also incorporate short lengths of tactile paving to help visually impaired people stay on the correct side. On the pedestrian side this may comprise a series of flat-topped bars running across the direction of travel (ladder pattern). On the cyclist side the same bars are orientated in the direction of travel (tramline pattern).
Some routes shared with cyclists will not be separated by such a feature allowing cyclists and pedestrians to share the same space. Cyclists should respect your safety (see Rule 62) but you should also take care not to obstruct or endanger them. Always remain aware of your environment and avoid unnecessary distractions.

I can't see anywhere where it says cyclists should give way to pedestrians in this situation (as opposed to at side roads). It says they should be careful when passing (but presumes they will pass), leave room and slow down, and let them know you are there with a bell. And that pedestrians should not obstruct cyclists and should be aware of the environment.

EDIT - AARGH I'm wrong, it's in rule H2. Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways. But all the other points still stand.