Grr cycling woman! AIBU to be well chuffed off?

[Greyhound]

Walking down pavement, alongside main road, with my dogs.

I hear a woman on a bicycle, coming down the pavement, honking to her two children (also on bikes) to 'BE CAREFUL!!!'.

First of all, the kids narrowly miss crashing into an elderly lady, then they DO come crashing into me and my dogs. Leads and dogs get tangled up under the bikes and one dog escapes into the busy road. I have hurt my knee and am livid.

I tell the woman that it is illegal to cycle on the pavement (to be fair, I believe it is legal for small children and small bikes to go on pavements - but not adults) and that there was nearly a serious accident. Apart from putting me and my dogs in danger, the children were put in danger too.

Got the dogs back, kids crying, mother does apologise to me but then just tells the kids to get back on their bikes and off they go.

Stupid female.

Chelsy are you on glue?

The dogs were 'inconvenienced'. They were nearly injured and killed.
And your interpretation of the Animals Act is nonsensical

YANBU OP. Knackered myself on another thread moaning about this. Didn't get through to the pavement cyclists one iota. I fear the cause is lost.

Yesterday's treat: two adult cyclists abreast on narrow pavement, approached by single adult cyclist on same pavement. Everything stops while they work out the etiquette (two opposing women saddle-walked past each other while the guy just carried on merrily cycling away).
Pedestrians stand by, open-mouthed. All happening NEXT TO bespoke cycle lane.

i get a lot of the opposite where I live - they widened the pavement down the side of what is a fairly busy road for cars, but is on a side where there are no houses, so is very quiet of pedestrians - other than people crossing to the bus stop or people walking dogs over to the grass to let them shit and then leave it there grrrr

Consequently, there is plenty of room for both cyclists and people although they have not deliniated the space to show who should be on what side of the path.

It is clearly marked as a cycle path and was opened to much trumpeting by the council and actually joins up with other cycle routs making a decent long route.

Whilst they were doing this work (at inconvenience to cars and pedestrians but not cyclists - road was closed one way to cars and bus routes were moved but empty road nice and clear for cycling!) they also put in some more traffic islands.

So, what we have now is people choosing to continue to cycle down the road ignoring the cycle path and the additional traffic islands make it more or less impossible to overtake as there isn't sufficient distance between them.

Selfish much?

I now dread good weather and love the rain as it keeps the selfish gits of the road.

Rant over :o

OP you are definitely in the right here. I can totally inderstand why the woman wanted to have her children cycle on the pavement, but when it got busy they should all have got of the bikes and walked.

We are a cycling family btw but we only cycle where it is safe and not to the detriment of other people.

Oh dear, poor old you. Hope your knee recovers quickly.

Unfortunately accidents do happen, and at least she stopped and apologised. Small children are a bit kamikaze on scooters or bikes, but preferable to them being holed up indoors on a Nintendo really. Still, the internet can always use another cyclist bashing thread.

Have a nice cup of tea and try not to dwell on it too much would be my advice.

Oh, and sparechange? The whole 'are you on glue' meme is a bit tired, a bit offensive, and really rather naff.

'Still, the internet can always use another cyclist bashing thread.'

No. It's not a cyclist bashing thread, it's a 'stupid cyclist on pavement' bashing thread. Bit of a difference.

Chelsy, that sure is a nice attitude you have there. Would you like a hat to go with it?

OP, YANBU, in fact, you were far nicer about it than I'd have been. We get a lot of that 'My child riding a bike on the pavement is far more important to your dog/buggy/pram/small pedestrian DC/elderly aunt/person in a wheelchair'. They soon get to know exactly what I think of them.

While I'm not excusing the people in the original post, it's worth pointing out that legally, it's not quite as simple as pavement cycling = bad.

Currently, it is possible for a fixed penalty to be served to pavement cyclists. However, the enforcement guidance regarding the serving of fpn is as follows:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

So, actually, there is a recognition that sometimes, as long as the cyclist does so responsibly, it's ok to use the pavement to avoid cycling on a potentially dangerous road.

I've often wondered if there's any recourse.

Sadly there is no registration plate to identify, but if you could, or if they were spotted by the police, is there a penalty?

President not cyclist bashing, I cycle myself.

Tea won't help my sore knee but yes, accidents happen and she did apologise. It just wasn't a safe place to cycle and there are plenty of more suitable places.

The other thing is that I work as a dog walker and am responsible for other people's dogs so I am particularly wary of danger from cars, other dogs etc.

Totally agree OP, I'm a walker and cyclists on pavements are a massive pain in the arse.

Years ago I turned a corner and walked straight into a bloke on a bike, I mounted his handle bars and I'm amazed I walked away with just severe bruising to my inner thighs. I think he was more shocked than me but by Christ it hurt!

I am equally intolerant of children, cyclists, dogs and their owners) equally, so I think I can bring an impartial view to this.

Greyhound YANBU

NannyOgg - you've hit the nail on the head there: as cyclists, people are anonymous (and untraceable) in a way the vast majority of motorists behind the wheel are not.

I used to find this very, very tricky when DS and DD were younger. I live in a town with intermittent cycle paths / lanes - so there will be one for a few hundred yards, then not, or a cycleway that is a single line but doesn't join on to anywhere at all except by getting off the cycle path and transferring to a busy road .... and there was the whole issue of how to get from house-in-residerntial-area to a main road with a cycle path. Most parks are all grass (playing fields), no paths, except for one which was a cycle ride - not a walk - away.

I would never have taken children on a pavement before they could stop, instantaneously, on command, and the rule was that if we could see a pedestrian on a pavement, we stopped, got off, and discussed best option - single file cycling, walking, temorary trip onto road etc.

There is a really difficult stage in cycling where a child is very capable ion a bike but is too young to judge e.g. the speed of traffic on a road [there's some research on that - i think the minimum age is 8ish]. Our ragmatic decision was for the children to ride ion the pavement with above rules, me generally on the road where feasible, and the very clear rule was that pedestrians own the pavement, so we were ALWAYS wrong to inconvenience or endanger them.

They re now both very competent road cyclists - DS was described by the tutor on his most recent Bikeability (the advanced one) as one of the 10 most able cyclists he hasd taught - but the steps to get there are really tricky to plan in many places without good cycle path networks.

YANBU - they should have stopped. But cycling on pavements, considerately, by young children is not ALWAYS wrong IYSWIM?

But cycling on pavements, considerately, by young children is not ALWAYS wrong IYSWIM?

I disagree. There is no need to be able to ride a bike. My children can, but there is nowhere safe around here for them to have ever ridden on the roads and I have gone through life quite happily having not sat on a bike since I was 12 (and living somewhere different)

As posted above, the home office would beg to differ that pavement cycling - regardless whether the cyclist is a child or not - is wrong. There is an acceptance that considerate cycling on a pavement (the considerate bit being key, of course that too many cyclists do ignore) is a safer course of action than riding on the busy road next to it.

Many people might not have a need to ride a bike, but why does it matter? Encouraging people and (especially) kids to be fit and active, and getting people to leave the car at home for short journeys is a good thing.

Nanny,

Until my children are 17 - and probably beyond, until they earn money to buy a car - bicycles will be their main mode of independent transport for journeys of up to 10 miles. The local bus service is exctremely patchy. The train station is a cycle ride away (DH cycles there every day to commute) and only goes north / South. We own a single, small car, which I need to get to work (I do ctycle there on occasion, but carrying 90+ marked books with me is very tricky!), and I am not always home in time to act as parental taxi. We are within walking distance of some places that the children need to get to, but by no means all. Cycling is the obvious solution, as well as being healthy and enjoyable.

Obviously if we lived in central London, our calculations would be different.

This does all sound rather unfortunate. Kids are hard to train - DD has a habit of scooting too close to people she catches up with, and of passing the too closely.

I don't know the full facts though. Could you have got the dogs out of the way sooner? It sounds unlikely that the kids would cycle straight at them. Perhaps the mother was taking the children to the park to practice and decided that the pavement would be fine as it's hardly used. It's referred to here as a 'busy pavement' by several posters, but I don't think one person and two dogs makes it 'busy' - just not deserted.

And maybe it was an accident, as happens from time to time?

For example, when I cycle to work it seems that every day someone has accidentally let their dog(s) crap all over the cycle lane. And when I go to the park with DD it seems that at least three or four dogs will accidentally be allowed to come right up to her even though she is clearly terrified - "only playing" of course - like the Labrador that ran at her full pelt from across a field when she was two, and continued running straight through the spot she had been standing looking confused after I managed to whisk her off her feet with a split second to spare - that dog was "just being friendly" too.

Accidents happen.

How do you suggest a mother of two with no access to a car gets her kids (who are obviously not totally confident cyclists) to practice, unless they live right next to a park? Bearing in mind that cyclists with lots of experience are killed on the roads almost daily?

YANBU Op, this would have given me the rage too and I say this as a keen cyclist.

Children cycling on the pavement I can accept as long as they do it responsibly and are taught to give way to pedestrians I.e stop, move out the way and wait for the pedestrian to pass. But adults cycling on the pavement - that's just PATHETIC. Grow up, get on the road or get rid of your bike.

And for those of you saying this is another cyclist bashing thread - seriously WHAT.THE.FUCK?

"So, actually, there is a recognition that sometimes, as long as the cyclist does so responsibly, it's ok to use the pavement to avoid cycling on a potentially dangerous road"

No problem with that. But the emphasis should be on the world 'responsibly'. There's a dual carraige way in our town that is fast and busy and bloody dangerous to cyclists. There also happens to be a wide pavement on both sides with very few pedestrians. IMO a perfect place for cyclists to safely and responsibly use the pavement. But it isn't Ok to do so when the pavement is narrow, the view is obscured and busy with walkers, and when the cyclist in question is an irresponsible knob.

JudgeLionelNutmeg the adult cycling on the pavement was considerate. And was presumably doing so to keep a close eye on her children. What's the problem with her?

Judge,

VERY occasionally, when my children were at that stage, I cycled on the pavement with them athe than on the road alongside them. Usually if there was an unusually long distance between where I would have to cycle, if on the road, and the pavement (we live in a town with lots of leafy tree-lined avaenues, with the pavements set well back. Add in a continuous line of parked cars, and I could be a long distance from them). The point is that to keep them safe AND pedestrians safe, I needed to be able to 'see what they could see' - see the oncoming pedestrian, the mobiklity scooter just coming out of the drive, the reversing van. If I was too far away for that by being on the road - and as I say, it was a rarity - then I would cycle with the children on the pavement. Same rule for me, though - see a pediestrain, stop and get off.

Was she being considerate? I don't think so, as presumably she's well aware her children's cycling wasn't yet up to scratch.

Or maybe she doesn't think a collision is that big a deal.

maybe the woman and her children were not cycling ' just for fun' but to get somewhere? you know as mode of transportation?

but I agree they should have been more considerate and this accident could have been avoided.

The adult didn't crash, and apologised. I'd say that is considerate riding.

I was responding to the criticism of her being on the pavement. Her being on the pavement was not a factor, so that particular criticism is unfair.

How do you suggest a parent gets their children to somewhere 'safe' to practice cycling?

Well they could walk their bikes to the park couldn't they?