To think this cyclist was an entitled idiot?

[Slh122]

I was taking 7 mo DS to the park in his pushchair. The path is along a busy road and is quite narrow. A cyclist was coming towards us on the path and I fully expected him to move onto the road so I carried on walking. He had on all the cycling gear, glasses etc, on a bike like they all had on Tour de France.
He didn't move and I couldn't take my pushchair onto the busy road. There wasn't enough space for both of us on the footpath. I stopped and he stopped about an inch away from the front wheel of my pushchair and said 'you should have moved to let me past, I'll let you off this time but please remember in future'. WTF?! It was not a designated cycle path either!
I said I can't take my pushchair onto the road it's too busy. He said 'you need to give way to cyclists'. We stood there for a moment until he moved his bike onto the road and cycled off.
If there had been somewhere to pull in, etc, I would have done to let him go past. But AIBU to think he was being a twat?!

Was he from a different country perhaps? I thought it was common knowledge that cycling on pavements is not allowed in the UK, unless there is a cycling path marked out.

Just thinking his sense of erroneous entitlement was so odd that it could be down to him being from a country where cyclists can use the footpath. I had a friend from Sweden, for example, who was really surprised the first time she was spoken to for cycling on the pavement in the UK. She had no idea it was not allowed.

That guy was still an arse though for being so rude, regardless of where he was from.

I was once (as an adult) told off for cycling on the pavement by the teacher who'd awarded me my Cycling Proficiency Badge

His bike couldn't have been that expensive, or he wouldn't have risked taking a road bike onto a bumpy pavement.

My DP would kill me if I rode his expensive road bike on a pavement!

By the way, cycling two abreast or in the middle of the road is perfectly legal. And sometimes a lot safer when there's pot holes

Life

I think frot is a derivative of the French frotter which means to rub, so I've always understood that frot/frottage is kinda masturbation using something other than the hand!

HTH

I like how the cyclist lycra uniform is something to ridicule them with, yet we ignore the frumpy middle aged women decked out in all the horse riding gear.... They look equally as ridiculous ;-)

Thanks,never - it does help,for one definition of the word help!

I knew as soon as I'd posted that there was going to be some reference there that I should be getting,given that I am past childhood - duh!

Gemma, I always wonder why lycra gets so much stick.When I started cycling again I just wore what I'd always worn,jeans,shorts,whatever - but cycling for exercise/fun on a road bike I don't find regular clothes practical or comfortable.Lycra is easy,washes and dries fast,doesn't flap and get caught on stuff,bottom halves are padded. So I am a hopefully not-to-frumpy middle aged woman in lycra (though not top of the range stuff,as i can't afford it!) because it is the most appropriate clothing for the activity

I too am a Lycra clad cyclist and it drives me mad when I see others cycling on the pavement/without lights/going through red lights!!!

Cycling is great when do d right. I would like to point out though that it is actually recommended to cycle 2 abreast when cycling in groups. It makes the distance drivers have to overtake shorter.

I wish that all cyclists and drivers had to do both so that they are more sympathetic to the others cause! The number of times idiots have felt the need to shout out of their cars about nonsense(road tax ) is unreal.

BoneyBackJefferson

"Its not that the previous threads haven't been read properly but that they get twisted and derailed so badly that the original post is being ignored."

Yes, normally by people leaping on to say how shocking cyclists are in general. And going on about other incidences that have occurred. That's why these threads are tiresome. Of course the OP is NBU, but it turns into yet another cyclist bashing thread. That is why these threads piss some of us off.

As you tell it, obv YWNBU but it is so odd that it makes me wonder whether it is actually a cycle path and you haven't noticed?? Even so, the cyclist should not have cycled aggressively (assuming you were not deliberately blocking the whole path where there would otherwise have been room for him to pass).

BTW, I saw 6 car drivers on their mobiles yesterday, including someone texting, and several in bike boxes which are there to make cyclists (slightly) safe(r) at junctions. Grrrr...people behaving self entitledly makes you mad doesn't it, especially when they are risking others' lives through their actions.

Actually: disambiguation: you said the path was not wide enough for both of you, but that the cyclist said you should have moved to let him past. Was there, or was there not room for you to pass each other safely? If not, who ended up passing by in the road?

Why do people find this hard to believe? I'm in Holland - cycling paths everywhere - and we still have dickheads on the path, running red lights and generally being annoying. Racers in particular, even other cyclists get arsey with them as they zip about as though in the Tour de France.

Some people are dicks - no need to defend them just because you may share an activity.

I find most cyclists are self important, self entitled twats with no road sense. Then they wonder why they get run over.
Seen it with my own eyes many, many times.

^

Just to prove my point.

Dh says he was abused on Wednesday for cycling on the pavement. The fact that it was a shared-use pavement escaped the notice of the abusers. To be ever so slightly fair on the pedestrians, the signs are few and far between and have been set about 12 feet up the lamposts so that you have to know that they are there. I notice them when I am driving - but then you are looking much further ahead as a driver than as a pedestrian.

The pavement was busy as people were walking towards a concert in a local park and he was going the other direction but he wasn't trying to go fast.

Just remembered that where my dad lives, the local policeman chief inspector (? the top person there anyway) has formally said that the police won't prosecute people who cycle on the (narrow) pavement (rural road leaving town) as they acknowledge that the road itself is not safe for bikes. Dad uses that road/pavement to go into the supermarket - but I also know that he would give way to any pedestrians on it (not that there are many, as the next hamlet is really further than most people walk nowadays).

whatsthatcomingoverthehill

So on a thread/rant about bad cycling, posters are not allowed to relate there own experiences of bad cyclists?

That is how threads work.

And threads on here are normally derailed by some of the cyclists on here informing everyone about how bad they have it (FYI, I don't disagree that they have a rough time of it)

I'm another lycra possessing lady and the way that some people cycle frequently makes me cringe.

Highway code has the following advice for cyclists under rule 62

"Cycle Tracks. These are normally located away from the road, but may occasionally be found alongside footpaths or pavements. Cyclists and pedestrians may be segregated or they may share the same space (unsegregated). When using segregated tracks you MUST keep to the side intended for cyclists as the pedestrian side remains a pavement or footpath. 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. Take care near road junctions as you may have difficulty seeing other road users, who might not notice you"

This is advisory so not actually law, however, if you do not take note of the advisory you may be guilty of the actual offence of Inconsiderate Cycling (I think that is what it is) which you can actually be charged with.

So, as a general rule of thumb the above supports the common decency approach to pretty much everything that you should always give way/ consideration to the more vulnerable individual.

The guy was being an ill informed arse but as he actually stopped he wasn't actually guilty of anything other than being the aforementioned ill informed arse. Annoying nonetheless.

He was a twat.

Meant to say, IF it was a shared path!!! Otherwise he was actually guilty of an offence but as others have mentioned the police do sometimes turn a blind eye!

Actually - I should have made it clear that I agree with the OP that the cyclist was a twat and that she was NBU

I was just pointing out that sometimes (although not in the OP's case) people don't realise that they are on shared use pavement or paths - in which case their ire should be directed at the local council for not making it clearer.

Boney

It's the regularity of the threads, and the lumping all cyclists in together. Quotes from this thread already:

• I hate 75% of the cyclists I encounter
• the amount of plonkers in full twatting cycling gear pushing their bikes through the crowds was unbelievable ... utter cockwombling frot ferrets the lot of them (Note that the cyclists were pushing their bikes. And really, you're surprised that a lot of cyclists went to watch the biggest cycling race in the world?)
• He's encouraged idiots to get the full kit and ride around like nobs. I'd estimate that 95% of London's cyclist population fall into this category. 98% at weekends
• I find most cyclists are self important, self entitled twats with no road sense. Then they wonder why they get run over. Seen it with my own eyes many, many times.

For some reason in this country cyclists seem to be viewed as fair game for all sorts of abuse. Threads like this all add to the general climate in which cyclists are viewed as scum. And it is in this climate that drivers see cyclists as an annoyance and drive too close, cut across us etc. Rather than building a climate of respect it is one of antagonism. But it is a mismatched game, where the drivers are protected in their steel boxes and the cyclist always comes off worse. And people are wrong about the causes of accidents: two thirds of the time it is the vehicle drivers fault (and of course, when a cyclist is at fault it is themselves they are predominantly putting in danger); as a pedestrian on a pavement you are many times more likely to be injured or killed by a car than a bike.

(Climbs down from a very high horse)

"you should have moved to let me past, I'll let you off this time but please remember in future"

LOL! Oh dear what a massive bellend, I think I would've laughed at him Can you imagine what he's like in a relationship if that's how he speaks to strangers though It was safer for him to move onto the road than a person pushing a pushchair with a child in, so YANBU.

To give some balance though, I regularly walk my dog on a fairly narrow canal towpath that it used by walkers, dog walkers, and cyclists, and so far it's been very harmonious. I figure it's safer and easier for me to get hold of my dog and move him to the side when a cyclist is approaching than for them to try and steer round us so close to the water or hedge. Every time the cyclists have always thanked me. Everyone is so polite round here I love how some cyclists have bells to warn of their approach; I think they all should.

The main road in the centre of Reading was pedestrianised several years ago. There are notices at each end saying No Cycling and there are bays where bicycles can be left. The number of people - usually male (I haven't seen a female one yet) - who cycle through the area beggars belief. They are never stopped. I sometimes plan to move into their path but never do.

I suppose they think the notices don't apply to them. Any Council Officers or Police reading this post, please? Hide in a doorway somewhere along the road and speed out to take the cyclist to task, please.

As for pavements, if it's an ordinary pavement for pedestrians, I would not budge and certainly would not tolerate being shouted out to get out of the way! Where footpaths are concerned, however, we ought to make sure that we know whether it's to be shared with cyclists but still don't get out of their way.

He must have thought it was a shared path. Still nobbish the way he spoke to you.

Are you sure it isn't?

There's a pedestrianised bit of street near the city centre where I live where bikes are allowed on. There are two tiny signs either end which in years of walking there I'd never noticed. When I started cycle commuting I looked online at a cycle path map and was surprised to see its for bikes as well.

I'm frequently get shouted at by people for cycling there even though I'm nowhere near them.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill

"And it is in this climate that drivers see cyclists as an annoyance and drive too close, cut across us etc."

Isn't this^^ exactly what you are saying posters are doing to cyclists?

"And people are wrong about the causes of accidents: two thirds of the time it is the vehicle drivers fault (and of course, when a cyclist is at fault it is themselves they are predominantly putting in danger); as a pedestrian on a pavement you are many times more likely to be injured or killed by a car than a bike."

I posted up thread that this would come up, in this case there is no car. This concerns a cyclist and a pedestrian. why is driving even being mentioned?

re the quotes this is how posters feel about cyclists, there must be a fair few of this type about for posters to feel this way.