AIBU re cyclist on pavement/cyclist going wrong way down one-way lane?

[blueberryporridge]

Just wondering, genuinely, if IWBU (I know I was a bit assertive) and also WWYD next?

Background (sorry, a bit lengthy): we live on a short stretch of narrow lane off a busy main road. The lane is one-way due to its width, and the direction of the one-way is because drivers coming off the main road are faced with a blind corner so, if anyone is on the road coming in the wrong direction, a car turning into the lane would be at great risk of colliding with him/her. Despite this, cyclists regularly cycle at speed the wrong way up the lane to join the main road. I always slow right down when turning into the lane in the car as I know there is a good chance there will be a cyclist (or a few of them) coming up the wrong way. There is a narrow pavement on one side of the lane (which is on our house's side of the lane and passes in front of our driveway).

Anyway, today, driving home at teatime rush, I was just about to turn into our driveway when I saw a cyclist heading up the lane in the wrong direction and just coming up to our drive. I normally stop to let any pedestrians past before I turn into our drive, but I must admit I was slightly fed-up by yet another cyclist heading in the wrong direction, and turned the car into the driveway making him stop. I also (and wouldn't normally do this but was feeling a bit exasperated after a hard week at work) rolled down my window and said "it's one-way". I noticed in passing at that point that the cyclist was actually on the pavement rather than on the road itself.

Cyclist proceeded to continue up the lane against the one-way flow, then turned round to come back and shout at me that he had been cycling on the pavement, not the road, and therefore it didn't matter what direction he had been heading in. I said that I felt it was inconsiderate and potentially dangerous to be cycling on the pavement, thinking of small DC or elderly mother possibly stepping out of our driveway unable to see cyclist about to whizz past our gate, and being knocked over. (Due to neighbour's mature trees, shrubs etc, visibility when coming out of our driveway (in the car or on foot) is not great.)

I also said that he shouldn't be cycling up the lane in the wrong direction due to the danger of the junction, and that approaching it on the narrow pavement wasn't any safer for him and made it more hazardous for pedestrians coming round the corner on the pavement.

He then told me that I didn't know anything about cycling. I explained that I do cycle quite a bit (well, I used to in my younger days) at which point he looked me up and down and said "I doubt it". (Obviously doesn't think I'd look good in black lycra, which is, unfortunately, correct....) He then went on to say that there was absolutely nothing in the Highway Code to say that cyclists couldn't cycle on pavements, and that he would be continuing to do this when he cycles home up our lane (in the wrong direction) every evening.

Well, I've checked up my Highway Code since and see, as I thought, that it states quite categorically that cyclists must not cycle on pavements. (It also contravenes a certain paragraph of the Road Traffic Act whose reference details I can't remember just now.)

So (1) WasIBU to tell him he shouldn't be cycling the wrong way up a narrow one-way lane with a blind junction and (2) that he shouldn't be cycling on the pavement?

And (3) Would IBU to print out a copy of the relevant Highway Code and legal paragraphs and hand them to him the next time he whizzes along the pavement in front of our house?

Or is it none of my business (unless, of course, I end up knocking the down or being knocked down by him as I come out my gate on foot one evening?

Also:

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

Don't be silly, pan. It isn't big or clever.

As we have gone into driver bashing mode, I wonder how many people are still alive/not had an accident due to good driving?

Pan
"Now, from who do we think those dangers come from? Peds, riders, or...drivers?"

Is that one mass of drivers, a generalisation that you claim doesn't exist?

Pan, I also cycle. I'm wondering if you're the arsehole who cycled through a red light last week while I was crossing the road with my baby in the buggy, who had to swerve to avoid hitting us both?

Amen, Miaow! This will become the norm and get worse. How very dare you be in their way! How dare your H&S needs trump theirs at a red light!

"arsehole"? mind, that's not very nice.

Oh sorry, I meant the selfless and considerate cyclist who shot through a red light, nearly knocked a pushchair over, swore in annoyance, and cycled on without apologising?

Arguments over cycling always end up dragging up the fact that other countries have better cycling provision. Not a relevant argument here. Cycling has only become a big thing in the last few years and our infrastructure really isn't set up to cope with it. We've got such a mishmash of provision that nobody knows where they are.

Our roads are - in the main- far too narrow to designate a small strip of them cycle lanes. A lot of our main roads are barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass safely. Add in buses, lorries and cyclists and you have a recipe for disaster. Other European towns and cities not only have more room, they all have motorways within a short distance of every town, and aren't expected to make a long journey on A roads that wend through every village on a route. It's like comparing oranges and cheese.

I walk to work on a pavement split into cycle path and pavement. Part goes under a bridge and is narrow. There are signs telling cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Do they? Do they heck. Further along I see the same cyclists every morning hurtling towards me on my side of the line. I'm supposed to jump into the bushes out of their way.

And cyclists don't read their own propaganda. Drivers are supposed to allow the same space as if you were overtaking a car. Does anybody on these boards ever have the space to overtake another car? So you sit behind a slow cyclist for ages waiting for a big enough space to overtake. Get past, only to stop further along and at that point they catch up and squeeeeeeze up the 2 inch gap by the side of your car. In your blind spot. Then you are supposed to sit behind them again. There has got to be a solution to this that suits both cyclist and driver. We need designated proper cycle paths that are separate to the roads and the pavements, to keep everybody safe.

To break this down into the facts; Cyclists are travelling the wrong way down a one-way road endangering themselves, this is illegal. Some cyclists are using the pavement, this is also illegal. These facts have annoyed the OP. Seeing a cyclist on the pavement, she drove a motor vehicle across his path in order to force him to stop.

The fact is, rather than speak to her neighbourhood Police team, she has decided to use a motor vehicle as a weapon. Her anger has overcome any sense of responsibility towards the safety of others. I see this behaviour on our roads regularly. Despite provocation, there is never an excuse for using a car in this way.

As others have pointed out, a much greater problem, particularly with small children and buggies, are cars on the pavement. Maybe we could all build up enough anger to force these onto the roads?

cars on the pavement?

The cyclist may have been on the pavement, but it sounds as though he was aware what was going on around him. He saw you, he stopped and waited, and would have carried on his journey peacefully had you not made some comment to him after making him wait. Sounds like you were looking for an argument.
Fwiw I don't like cyclists on the pavement when they are going at speed as they could cause an accident. Not quite sure what you had to gain here by picking an argument this guy though, who doesn't sound like he falls into that category. Trying to prove a point?

Stats:

2008 - 2013

1,361 pedestrians killed by cars; 9 killed by cyclists.
21,005 pedestrians seriously inured by cars; 359 by cyclists.

The numbers killed or seriously injured by any motor vehicle (ie not just cars) are even higher.

Even when on the pavement, pedestrians are many times more at risk of KSI from motor vehicles than from cyclists.

In urban areas 99.5% of pedestrians killed, are killed by motor vehicles.

and the strawman stats come out.

of course more people are killed when they collide with a car than with a bike - cars weigh about a metric ton

buggypilot agreed absolutely on both fronts. My DDs were nearly run down walking to the school bus stop 300 metres along a pavement when a car travelling at speed (? 30mph) mounted the pavement and was driving straight at them. DD1 said she literally didn't have time to move and that the car missed them both by a whisker. I know anecdotes are not data but I put the data in my last post.

Also, nobody would dream of using their vehicle to block the way of a car driver they thought was breaking the law whilst they had a quiet word (eg driver on the phone, having a broken tail light, entering a bike box). I think riots would break out. Somehow, cyclists seem like fair game (?? why) as if they are not human.

BBJ ? strawman stats? Do you have alternative ones? I am going on govt figures. Sorry if I am ruining your case with the facts.

Just last night we had someone killed and another person seriously injured by a car onto the pavement and ploughed straight into a bus stop, in North Manchester. Witnesses indicate no other car involved.

Dreadful the way some people use facts to illustrate their argument, isn't it?

littlemiss

Its a strawman because it has nothing to do with the thread, it has nothing to do with cyclists riding on a pavement or the wrong way up a one way street.

pan ^^

It's everything to do with the thread, and it's themes, IF you are reading it properly. Your finding the stats uncomfortable isn't an excuse to denounce them as 'straw man', which incidentally is a concept you are mis-using here.

straw man would be a misrepresentation of the facts to suit your argument, which is what introducing them here is doing.

It would also be nice to drop the passive aggressive personal BS from your posts, it does nothing for your points.

There you go again, using concepts with only a frail grasp of what they actually mean.
Here's a bit of advice for you - try actually writing in full paragraphs, with a developed argument, illustrated with bits of experience, or statistics, or a considered view - instead of lobbing out dud, one-line grenades which always miss the point. It would help your points, IF you had any to make. Up your game?

I give up on you BBJ.

Why do the cyclist hating motorists on this thread moaning about bikes being ridden on the pavement? Surely this suits you as we aren't on the road and you get it to yourselves. Pedestrians I can sort of understand especially if you've encountered a rude cyclist but motorists, no. I wonder if you feel the same about horses on the road or should they stay in their stables.