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.

You are assuming that the people who campaigned for this cycle path are the same ones who now use the road.

You foaming at the mouth people obviously feel very strongly about this. Why don't you all contact your MPs and see if you can get the law changed?

Or demand to know the area it happened so you can all go round and stand on her door step, spitting with fury, with a symbolic noose perhaps.

Or doesn't interacting with the real world (and the danger of doing something constructive) give you the warm glow of self righteousness (and complete safety) of posting anonymously on a website?

Come on OP, form a lynch mob.

Absolutely pathetic.

How do you know I haven't bothered complaining?

Many people complain about cycle paths - here are some homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.htm

I can only imagine your rage at people cycling on a road they are entitled to use to get to where they want to go. How dashed inconsiderate of them!

If the road is a dual carriageway, you can pass in the other lane. If it is not a dual carriageway then you couldn't pass before.

Highway Code 163:
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should ... give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.

Im not assuming anything - having a right to do something doesn't make it not selfish.

Why should I have to dismount at junctions, and go slower to avoid pedestrians etc?

See, that's what I mean - you really don't see that as being selfish when you have another option that may be slightly less convenient to you but is far more convenient to the rest of the people trying to use the road? Unfortunately cars and buses can't just decide that actually it's quicker to drive up the path or cut across the grass or whatever, they can only use the road whereas in this scenario the cyclist has a choice and chooses to suit themselves rather than consider others.

As I say, I see stupid drivers and pedestrians every day as well as cyclists so this is not meant to be a cyclist bash - it just totally frustrates me every day and I'm not sure if you can appreciate where I am coming from?

No I don't appreciate where you're coming from. If I'm on my bike, commuting say, I want to get somewhere quickly. So that means cycling along roads at about 20mph. Cycling along a path where I have to stop every so often for junctions, and can't go as fast to avoid pedestrians, is not going to happen. When you get up to speed and have to slow down all the time it is more physically demanding. More so than pressing your foot down on the pedal in the car anyway... Surely, as a cyclist too, you would appreciate this? Getting annoyed at cyclists doing something they have every right to do, and have perfectly good reasons for doing so, is unreasonable and symptomatic of the way cyclists are viewed in this country.

It's not a dual carriageway - it was safe to overtake on the other side of the road before as there werent traffic islands down the middle that means you don't have time to overtake without smashing into one - the road was also basically wide enough for 3 cars before (i.e. 2 cars could easily pass if there were cars parked but cars can't park there iyswim?) so there was plenty of space to give a cyclist room.

Don't get me wrong, a driver could choose to give the cyclist no room whatsoever and squeeze past but that would be both dangerous and against the highway code.

'Come on OP, form a lynch mob.

Absolutely pathetic.'

So funny. And you talk about other people foaming at the mouth. Have a nip of the cooking sherry and a bit of a lie down.

I'm sorry whatsthat, but you still come over entitleist to me. You want to be able to get to where you are going as quickly as possible - so doesn't any one else, or are the roads jsut there for your convenience only? As a pedestrian, maybe my quickest route takes me meandering back and forward across a road at 4pmh - so is that okay too?

Obviously if cyclists haven't been given a safe place to cycle, we all have to share the same roads and I do give clear consideration to them at all times. It's when they do have an option and choose not to use it because it is slightly less convenient that I find utterly frustrating.

Right ok, so previously it was wide enough to overtake other cars that were being driven - that's a very wide road. You read that you should give cyclists at least as much room as a car when overtaking?

The traffic islands must be very close together if the cyclists are significantly slower than 30mph and you still don't have room to get past between the islands - and if they're that close together I can't imagine it's a long stretch of road - so how much time does it cost you, really?

A pedestrian isn't allowed to walk across a road.

If I got off and walked along a pavement no doubt that would be more convenient for other people too. Am I entitleist for not doing that if I'm slowing the traffic down?

A cycle path can serve various uses. The one you are talking about is probably great for kids and people who just want a leisurely ride, but not for people who actually want to get places.

The complaint you have is against the road designers. Not the cyclists who dare to incur your wrath for inconveniencing you.

I am pro-bike.

BUT bikes belong in the road, in cycle lanes, in the park, on bridle ways. They do not belong on pavements ESPECIALLY if there are people on the pavement.

There is a bit on my commute where if you go on the pavement you miss out a huge traffic queue (to narrow to squeeze thru on road). I get off and push slowly at walking pace.

As a cyclist myslef and when my children are cycling, we use cycle paths where available as that is the safest place for us to be. Where there is no safe route, then we don't cycle.

My son would like to be able to cycle to school, there is no safe route and at times no pavement (never mind a quiet one) so he can't, end of. I am happy to continue to campaign for a safe route but can't see that happening. The road he would need to travel has varies speeds up to and including 60 mph and has blind corners - and yes, I therefore have to drive it everyday and yes people do cycle on it - sometimes with no bright clothing, reflectors or lights. However, I respect that in that case there is no other viable option - the only other road is a Motorway.

In the other case, there is a viable option and they don't use it - probably because it is a 30 limit road and is fairly straight so they don't feel unsafe on it.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill said "A pedestrian isn't allowed to walk across a road."

Of course they are, unless it's a motorway.

myotherusernameisbetter said: "As a cyclist myslef and when my children are cycling, we use cycle paths where available as that is the safest place for us to be. Where there is no safe route, then we don't cycle."

You wouldn't get out from our house then. ...

The traffic islands are very close together and I didn't say you should overtake when there was a car coming the other way, I said that you could.

It's not about how much time it costs one person behind the cyclist, it's the accumulated time that that one person costs the rest of the people behind them - on that stretch of road maybe 40 - 50 cars and a bus or two over a 5 minute period. So, about 100 people being held up by one person who actually has another option? I'm afraid I still find that selfish.

Anyway, I have somewhere I need to be so I'll leave you for now.

Thanks all - just to be clear, it was the two children who collided with me, not the mum.

By the time I heard them coming, it was too late to get out of the way. It would have helped if they had rung their bells.

My dogs weren't on extendable leads - I don't like extendable leads as the tangle/snap/malfunction so easily.

It was just an accident and I expect I over reacted. I didn't shout at the lady, just looked rather panicked and shocked!

It could have been much worse but it was a painful and upsetting experience for me.

Definitely not bashing cyclists at all - I'm all for kids cycling and loved the freedom of cycling when I was a child.

Cheeblame, we are very lucky - the cycle path runs past the end of our culdesac and takes you all the way into the town centre in one direction and up to the village in the other. Unfortunately there is no safe route to my childrens school (High school) and not into my work either as I don't work in town :(

Cheeblame, I phrased that badly. I was replying to myother... who was saying pedestrians could meander across a road (presumably in front of traffic) which they cannot do. Of course they're allowed to cross a road.

If 50 cars and a bus are going past a point in 2 minutes that means they are travelling at an average of about 12.5 mph, assuming a car length of 4.5 metres and gap between of about 9 metres.

I'd guess that's not bad for rush hour?

Cheebame:
A 9m gap? That's space for at least 3 cyclists!

Ooh bikes and dogs all on one thread...

There are big long cycle paths where I live running next to the road, and yet some cyclists still choose to ride on the road. Yes it is annoying (and no I don't care), especially when like last week we got stuck behind a cyclist happily trundling along in the middle of the road without giving a shit that there was a massive queue of traffic behind him.

And okay so a few junctions might hold you up on the cycle paths but from what I've seen a lot of cyclists tend to ignore traffic and pedestrian lights anyway. Apparently they don't apply when you're on a bike