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.

Yes I'm aware the adult didn't crash. I'm saying she was inconsiderate in letting two small children who presumably aren't very bicycle confident loose on what sounds like a busy pavement.

Also I personally think it's inconsiderate to clog a pavement with a group of three cyclists.

Oh, youre presumably meant to drive the bikes and children in your car to the park. Or just push the bikes everywhere. Or simply not bother teaching them to cycle at all.

OP has not specified who crashed into her. The children, tge mother, one child, both children or all three. From her OP it sounds like all three, which seems almost impossible, since you would think the law of averages means that at least one of them would have avoided her. Dogs running about on extendable leads are very hard to avoid. Even when they are well trained.

'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.'

The OP states that the kids narrowly missed another pedestrian.

YANBU. The mother was inconsiderate, and she and her children should have BELLS on their bikes!

'Dogs running about on extendable leads are very hard to avoid. Even when they are well trained.'

Really not sure what the relevance of this is as the OP has stated that she does not use extendable leads.

It depends how far the park is, IrianofWay Small bikes are quite awkward to push because kids have short arms relative to the size of the pedals and other sticky-out bits. When I was growing up we lived about 2 miles from the park. That's a long way for anyone to push a bike.

squoosh it doesn't sound like a busy pavement to me. All I know is it had three cyclists and one woman walking two dogs on it. It's not exactly Oxford Street is it?

Helpful to read the OP I find as it states there were three cyclists and two pedestrians.

It is a cyclist bashing thread because there seems to be a disproportionate interest in cycling misdemeanors. How many threads are there about other inconsiderate people on the roads. I could have started the following in the last couple of months:

• AIBU to be annoyed with driver who didn't give way when pulling into a side street I was crossing with my two children?
• AIBU to be annoyed with the driver who went through a pedestrian crossing whilst the green man was flashing (I started crossing when is was a static green man)?
• AIBU to be annoyed with the bus driver who clearly doesn't seem to know how long his vehicle is so nearly pushed me off the road when he was overtaking?
• AIBU to be annoyed with the pedestrian who stepped into the road right in front of my bike?
• AIBU to be annoyed with the driver who was 10 foot off my bumper driving at 70mph on the motorway?

etc etc

From what the OP describes of course she is not being unreasonable. The kids shouldn't have cycled into her. Very few people would disagree. But it is yet another thread moaning about cyclists. There is a definite animosity to cyclists in this country which you don't find elsewhere, and it is rather puzzling. Particularly when all of the statistics show that cyclists are actually some of the most vulnerable road users, and more often than not if there is an accident it is not their fault.

Had forgotten about the old lady. It still doesn't sound busy. I can see about 20 people on a short stretch of pavement out of my window. That's busy. 2 pedestrians isn't busy.

Irian,

To get to the nearest park which is suitable for cycling (as in not fully grassed as a playing field) is 2 miles each way. A really good distance for cycling, too far for a small child to walk there and back. Bicycles aren't just a toy - they are a mode of transport, and children who intend to use them that way have to learn to do so as safely as possible, as they will ALWAYS come off worst in an accident on the road. Investing real time and effort in that training is necessary - and tbh has to be much more frequent and intensive than any plan that involves walking 4 miles to a place to cycle could ever allow for.

I don't drive or cycle. I'm happy to complain about he misdemeanours of both.

'Had forgotten about the old lady. It still doesn't sound busy.'

Good for you.

squoosh are you one of the pedestrians that, when faced with a pavement next to a cycle path, walk on the cycle path part and then scowl at the cyclists? :)

No, I'm not.

The fact the mother felt she had to warn her kids ( after how many times that day?) makes me feel she knew they weren't safe or in control...

I am moving towards cyclists needing to pass a test before being out in public. Why do I feel like that?
Yesterday, for the second time in a year a cyclist was killed with 2 miles of my house. The first time the corner has found that the cyclist was a fault and yesterday's accident the cyclist had chosen not to use a bespoke cycle path in a busy industrial estate.
Despite all of this as I travelled to work at 10pm last on a main A road with bespoke cycle paths combined with pavements and cycle lanes on the road that have arrows to indicate that the cycles should travel in the same direction as the motor vehicles, I meet a cyclist in the cycle lane travelling in the opposite direction to the motorised vehicles.

"yesterday's accident the cyclist had chosen not to use a bespoke cycle path in a busy industrial estate"

Cyclists have a right to use the road. And to not be killed.

If you rode on cycle paths and had to negotiate the assorted street furniture, broken glass, dog mess, 90 degree bends and so on, you'd realise why they aren't always used.

If a driver died in a crash on the motorway, I doubt anyone would suggest they should have been on a meandering B road instead.

YANBU
The woman was totally 100% in the wrong. If she couldn't control her kids they shouldn't be riding on the pavement. The consequences of them hitting another child, an elderly person or, well, anyone really could be terrible.
It can be ok for little kids to cycle or scooter on pavements but it depends on the circumstances.
Silly woman!

Do you think the consequences of 30kg of child and bike hitting a child at less than 10mph is worse than the consequence of 1500kg of car and driver hitting a child on a bicycle at 30mph thatsnotwhatIsaid?

It isn't always illegal to cycle on pavements - there are large stretches near me where it is specifically allowed, with signs up to say so. So it's never wise to make assumptions about that.

Lonecatwithkitten

When a cyclist dies in a collision with a motor vehicle, two thirds of the time it is the motorists fault. I suggest there is more of a problem with driver training rather than cyclist training. And of course, the irresponsible cyclist is primarily putting themselves in danger, whereas irresponsible motorists put other people in danger.

If you rode on cycle paths and had to negotiate the assorted street furniture, broken glass, dog mess, 90 degree bends and so on, you'd realise why they aren't always used.

To me the cyclists should be complaining about that, not then using roads and inconveniencing other road users who don't have any option to use other paths etc.

I am not condeming cyclists here, I am a car driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian - I see idiotic examples of them all every day.

My main bugbear at the moment is that the cyclists that I encounter daily clearly feel it is more convenient to cycle on the road rather than on the designated path that may not take them on the quickest route or means that at some point they have to dismount to cross a road. They then don't allow vehicles to pass. Traffic runs slower, that means others including buses full of passengers are inconvenienced, also there is a greater build up of emissions and pollution.

That is selfish imo. while still trying to take the moral high ground against car drivers.

Do you think that complaining will make it better overnight?

Why is using the road 'inconveniencing' other road users? Cyclists are entitled to use roads - unlike motorised vehicles, which are only permitted to do so (i.e. you can use them if you pay) Where I ride, in rush hour being 'held up' by a cyclist just means that you spend less time in the next queue of cars.

Perhaps you should complain that the 'cycle paths' built near you are clearly so badly laid-out that no-one uses them, and that they should make the roads longer and more convoluted to facilitate better cycle paths?

Cheblame - nope it wont change overnight if you complain but does that make it okay just to not bother?

When I said about not being the most direct route - I mean that the path runs alongside the road but that the crossing point may be further past the turning they want to take, so rather than take the path and then crossing, they will cycle up the road instead. The reason it inconveniences other road users is that in order to build the safe path (that people campaigned for), they had to narrow the road and they then added traffic islands in order to facilitate people getting from the housing estates safely to the cycle path and now it is impossible to pass a cyclist at all if they are on the road.

This means that all the traffic has to travel at the rate the cyclist chooses whilst they are cycling next to a generally empty, quiet, clean and well lit path - just so they don't have to dismount to cross the road. Tell me what part of that isn't selfish?

"To me the cyclists should be complaining about that, not then using roads and inconveniencing other road users who don't have any option to use other paths etc."

So you deem a cyclist, despite having every right to be there, an inconvenience? And cyclists do complain about the state of cycle paths. But a cycle path existing does not mean they are required to use it. If I want to cycle along a road I will do, even if there is a cycle path. Why should I have to dismount at junctions, and go slower to avoid pedestrians etc? The road should not have been configured in such a way that makes it difficult to overtake but that is not the cyclists fault. Calling cyclists selfish for doing something they have every right to do shows yet again the sort of attitude prevalent in this country.