Cyclists on pavement

[Rentergob89]

So this week a lady has been riding her bike on the pavement whilst children and their parents are attempting to walk in the opposite direction. She does not stop for anyone and yesterday had knocked a small child over grumbled something and carried on riding her bike on the pavement. Today I could see her coming towards me so I stopped where I was and refused to move for her. She stopped and said I was an inconvenience and I should move my fat a### out the way. I replied " you should not be riding your bike on the pavement you should be in the road" she then rode off swearing and shoving her two fingers up at me. Charming!! Two other mothers witnessed this and said thank you to me for saying something another however said I was in the wrong for not moving out of the way for her.
The pavement gets really busy after school as its the only way children and parents can walk to either their cars or the bus stop. All I am concerned about is the safety of the children but she seems to only care about herself. Was I in the wrong??

[user1474095534]

I have not assaulted anyone, both times the police investigated they have concluded that I was not at fault.

[WheelofPan]

And this from the person who claims to have assaulted someone causing them chronic pain.
You sound like a violent fantasist.

[user1474095534]

I think the people defending cyclists that do illegal manoeuvrers need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

[littleprincesssara]

Maybe cyclists should try exercising just the tiniest little bit of compassion for people who don't have your able-bodied privilege, rather than dismissing disabled people's traumatic personal experiences as being insignificant simply because they're a minority?

Seems obvious to me that everyone should obey the law (including pedestrians). But often people with disabilities can't do what some cyclists expect of them, whether it's hearing bells or jumping out the way. There is an inherent power imbalance and people need to be aware of that.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

I've said exaggerated once witchy. You seem to be exaggerating yourself rather... It's not dismissing someone's experiences to question whether that is reflective of the general situation. I compared it to mine to make the point that if I went purely by what I've experienced then pedestrians are much worse. But I know that's not the case.

[Hedgehogparty]

If we are going on personal experience rather than bothering with statistics then.....

I was knocked off my bike by a woman who ran into the road without looking. I was on the ground while she was shouting at me for not stopping. I'd just dropped DS at Nursery, thankful he wasn't injured. I was shaken up and bruised, luckily nothing else.

I cycle near a large 6th form college. Literally on a daily basis, teenagers will just walk into the road without looking first. I now just expect this to happen every day.
Lucky I have good brakes and a loud bell.

But whether I'm on my bike, driving or walking , I still view the vast majority of people as reasonable. Idiots are idiots , whatever category.

[witchywoohoo]

If you don't want to be accused of being arrogant don't completely dismiss other peoples experiences because they don't fit with the narrative that you are trying to create. Several times you have claimed that people exaggerate the truth because your experiences are different - that IS arrogant.

[TiggyD]

I think it needs some give and take from all the parties involved.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

Eh? I'm saying that statistics do matter but a raw number doesn't say anything without context. Such as: What proportion of cyclists are involved accidents? How likely is someone to be hurt by a cyclist doing something wrong? Etc. And I'm getting fed up of you calling me arrogant. Lay off it please.

[witchywoohoo]

a number on it's own doesn't mean much, it's all relative

There we go - utterly arrogant. The statistics don't matter- it's all relative.

you've changed from talking about cyclists endangering pedestrians on footpaths to total number of cycling accidents

You and others have condoned cycling on pavements when cyclists can assess the risks. Looking at stats with regards to accidents involving bikes it's clear to see that some cyclists often can't assess risk - therefore no cyclists should ever be on a pavement. The two are linked - poor judgement is poor judgement.

We seem to be going around in circles What'sthat. I do understand your concerns regarding people's attitudes to cyclists - my husband cycles and my son loves it so it's only a matter of time before he's properly on the roads too and I will be sick with worry every time he goes out. But I really believe that so long as bad cyclists go unanswerable, people's attitudes towards them will worsen. What's the answer? I honestly don't know.

I hope you enjoy only safe and happy cycling

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

littleprincess, there are statistics showing accidents from cyclists doing illegal things, such as going through red lights. Think there's a link in one of the reports linked above. No there are no overall 'illegality' statistics, just as there aren't for other road users. But the statistics that there are do give a good idea of the risks from different modes of travel.

If I went on my personal experience it would be that 3 times I've hit pedestrians when I've been cycling. Each time they stepped out into the road with no warning and without looking. I've never been hit by a cyclist as a pedestrian.

You may well he right that engaging with these threads does more harm than good. I've tried to explain as clearly as I can why they concern me, but people don't seem to get it. It's not about defending dangerous cyclists, it's about trying to correct the narrative that exists on here and in general in this country of cyclists being particularly bad and worthy of disdain. And that is a problem because I can see it with the way I am treated on the roads.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

Witchy, a number on it's own doesn't mean much, it's all relative. And as I said above you've changed from talking about cyclists endangering pedestrians on footpaths to total number of cycling accidents which are obviously massively different. I'm not sure what you expect me to acknowledge about those numbers. You seem to think it implies something different to how I take it.(Which is that yes cyclists can do dangerous things. Most of the time when they do so they are endangering themselves more than anyone else. Sometimes they will hurt pedestrians and of course they should be punished if they do so. And more often than not if they're in an accident with a vehicle it is the driver's fault.)

[knittingdad]

In part councils have created this problem by creating cycle routes on the cheap by simply painting a bicycle onto pavements in some places. This blurs the distinction between where cyclists are allowed on the pavement and where they are not.

Obviously a person should always give way to a more vulnerable user of the road/pavement, but some people are arrogant twats whether they are driving, cycling or walking.

[RunningHurts]

Cyclists absolutely should not be riding on pavements (especially busy school run pavements). However, I can understand why they sometimes feel unable to cycle on roads

Today on my bike a car overtook me immediately before turning left (she was still alongside me as she started to turn into me!) Not first time that has happened. It's like drivers don't process seeing bikes at all sometimes or as soon as they see a bike it is simply something to get past, with no thought to whether doing so is either necessary or safe

[witchywoohoo]

Francis - that is an awful thing to have happened to you. Terrible that she didn't even stop to make sure you were ok, and terrible that you haven't been able to ride again.

[witchywoohoo]

Where have I done that?

Well not once have you acknowledged the ROSPA stats as evidence that there are significant numbers of dangerous cycling incidents... instead you have maintained that people's experiences of poor cyclists are exaggerated and/or not true "I don't see anything like the level of dangerous cycling talked about".

[littleprincesssara]

All the arguments and attempts to minimize illegal cycling (and the posts explicitly condoning illegal cycling) are there in black and white.

What you have seen is your personal experience, that is all.
So? What's wrong with personal experience? Personal experience proves it is a fact that some cyclists in London break the law and cycle very dangerously and injure people as a result. That is not in question. Anything else is just numbers.

There are no statistics showing illegal activity by cyclists as cyclists are not monitored and very few incidences are ever reported.

If cycling threads were just people going "oh no how awful, all cyclists should abide the law, I'm proud to be a safe cyclist" (which is the sensible, not to mention sympathetic response!) they would all be maybe two pages long, max.

The only reason cycling threads become epic bunfights is because some cyclists get absolutely deranged at the idea that cyclists are not above criticism. That's what gives cyclists a bad name and makes cycling so controversial.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

"It is pretty arrogant to completely ignore the statistics presented to you that demonstrate that many cyclists aren't capable of exercising proper judgement."

Where have I done that? I'm well aware of the statistics. And they seem to match pretty well with my experiences. If you were to take mumsnet as a guide to safety on roads you would think that the roads are full of cyclists screaming down pavements and going through red lights, causing huge numbers of casualties and generally being a huge menace. But that isn't reflected in the statistics. As a pedestrian you are something like 50 times more likely to be involved in an accident with a car than a bicycle. Yet so much more attention seems to be given to cyclists.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

"Seriously. I personally witnessed a guide dog being smashed into, and a group of very small children being very nearly smashed into as a result of cyclists running red lights. Are you calling me a liar and claiming these two events (both of which had multiple witnesses) never happened, or are you saying you just don't give a shit?"

No, I'm saying that there are statistics for this, and they don't bear out what you claim. What you have seen is your personal experience, that is all.

[whatsthecomingoverthehill]

Who has said what the cyclist did here wasn't so bad?

Just go and stand at a road junction and see the number of 'illegal acts' committed and by who. Then compare that to the number of threads started about cyclists.

a) You wonder why cyclists get so much negative attention when 98% of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries are from cars.
b) I haven't seen anyone saying that.
c) I haven't seen victim blaming.
d) Hahaha, it's an internet discussion group, half of the arguments on either side are going to be strawmen.
e) Doesn't make it OK but you wonder why other groups who do far much more harm don't get the same level of attention.
f) and g) Yes cyclists shouldn't cycle on pavements if they don't think the road is safe, I'm with you there. But it should be safe for cyclists on the roads. If you're talking about why people end up on pavements that is bound to come into the discussion. Part of discouraging people from cycling on pavements is making sure that roads are safe for them. That is not excusing people who cycle on pavements, rather it is wondering why people would choose to do so, and if there is something that can be done that facilitates it, it is better for everyone.
h) It isn't black and white. There are degrees of risk. And as I've said multiple times on this thread, risk and the law don't always mesh particularly well. That is not re-writing events.
i) There does seem to be an obsession with cyclists on here. I'm not going to apologise for mentioning it.
j) Again with the black and white stuff. There are differences in how 'big a deal' something is. And that is reflected in the punishments for those crimes.
k) and l) O haven't said that.

I'm not defending people who cycle dangerously. For about the 10th time of asking, I'm wondering why it gets such disproportionate attention.

[witchywoohoo]

Define 'a lot'. My impression of these threads is that cycling misdemeanors are constantly exaggerated......I don't see anything like the level of dangerous cycling talked about, and yes that does include in London. And the stats seem to be with me on that

The ROSPA figures did that already did they not? They highlighted that a huge number of cyclist casualties are caused by cycling misdemeanours.

I am defensive because I see the attitudes from these threads reflected in the attitudes of people driving around me.

I can totally understand that. But you mention that your opinions reflect your own experiences of cycling. That's the same as for most people - their beliefs and opinions are shaped by their experiences. Last week my toddler almost got knocked off her feet by a woman on a bike with a trailer on the pavement. Yesterday, after posting on this thread, I was in my car at a red light when a cyclist came up the middle of two lanes of cars, swept in front of my car and onto the pavement via the pedestrian crossing and round a blind corner - all with a spliff in his hand. These are my recent experiences and of course they are going to colour my beliefs.

My impression of these threads is that cycling misdemeanors are constantly exaggerated

Apologies for the full of arrogance comment but it is pretty arrogant to believe that only your experiences are valid and true. It is pretty arrogant to completely ignore the statistics presented to you that demonstrate that many cyclists aren't capable of exercising proper judgement.

[littleprincesssara]

littleprincessara might not care what the statistics say and base it on her impressions.

Wow, fuck you.

Seriously. I personally witnessed a guide dog being smashed into, and a group of very small children being very nearly smashed into as a result of cyclists running red lights. Are you calling me a liar and claiming these two events (both of which had multiple witnesses) never happened, or are you saying you just don't give a shit?

I've personally been knocked down by illegal cyclists four times. But I didn't die, so obviously I have no right to be upset.

And people claim cyclists aren't defending illegal behaviour!



There are NO statistics showing all cycling-related incidents since very few incidents involving only cyclists and pedestrians ever get reported to the police, except the very rare ones that lead to death or hospitalisation. I've personally witnessed at least several hundred minor incidents and seven incidents that caused injury that were never reported to the police.

[littleprincesssara]

You don't need to explicitly say, "it's fine to cycle dangerously and illegally" to minimise something. Whenever a cyclist does something terrible, MN is flooded with people trying every trick in the book to make out that it's not so bad. That's the very definition of marginalising people. The attitude from MN cyclists is extremely defensive towards criticism of ANY cyclist. Besides there are at least four posts just on this thread that actively , explicitly condone illegal cycling.

When you hear about someone committing a dangerous/illegal act and your response is to:

a) Make a big deal about how only a small number of people get killed like it's insignificant. (How many people need to die before it's a problem?)
b) Act like any injury less serious than actual death somehow doesn't matter.
c) Victim-blame.
d) Introduce irrelevant strawmen arguments.
e) Talk about how non-cyclists break the law and kill/injure people too. (And that makes it okay?)
f) Talk about the risks to cyclists (undeniably true, but that doesn't justify breaking the law!)
g) Claim sometimes cyclists have no choice but to break the law (yes, sometimes it's not safe to cycle on roads - still doesn't justify it.)
h) Re-write events (talking about people cycling very slowly on pavements - still illegal and many don't cycle slowly).
i) Claim anyone who dares to mention an illegal act committed by a cyclist is just "cyclist-bashing" and has an "obsession" and an anti-cyclist agenda.
j) Claim it's not a big deal to break the law (on this thread alone people posted "surely it's no big deal to cycle at walking speed on pavements" and someone else said "even though it's illegal I can't see the issue with it.")
k) Flat out admit you break the law.
l) State cyclists should break the law to avoid road dangers.

Then YES you are minimising the dangers and implicitly defending those who commit these dangerous crimes.