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??

Iceroadducker- insult reported, thanks though 😇

Witchwoohoo - im not sure you are looking at the correct statistics there. That data concerns incidents between cyclists and road vehicles. The data concerning cyclists and pedestrians can be seen here.

www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rbrf.pdf

Toffee100 - I have no idea if they still provide cycling proficiency tests.

Its called bikeability now and is offered to kids in lots of schools in year 5 or 6. I have been impressed with my DS's road sense on a bike since he did this course at school.

Illegal cyclists are an absolute menace and extremely dangerous where I live. Literally every single day I witness dangerous cycling, eg running red lights at blind pedestrian crossings where the cyclist cannot see if there is anyone on the crossing or not. I have witnessed a cyclist smash into a guidedog, and a cyclist have to throw his bike to the ground to avoid smashing into a party of very small school children after running a red light just round a blind corner. There are essentially no-go areas in my neighbourhood for blind or infirm people, due to the insane numbers of aggressive illegal cyclists. And it is extremely frightening.

I really don't give a shit what the percentage of deaths is. There are so many injuries and incidents that don't go reported. If I was to report every incident, it would be a full-time job! As for the suggestion of videoing, am I supposed to strap a video camera on my head, in order to be constantly filming? Certainly no time to whip a phone out, open the camera app, switch it to video mode, and start filming, in the microsecond it takes for a cyclist to whizz by.

The fact that (presumably well-behaved) cyclists are trying to marginalise and minimize abuse and dangerous criminal behaviour is truly shocking. Why are you so obsessed with defending criminals who are giving you a bad name?

Mumski I was looking at the figures which were highlighted by previous posters to try and highlight that cyclists are hounded off of the roads and on to pavements. I was highlighting that the truth is not as black and white as many cyclists would suggest. And I was highlighting that pedestrian deaths are not the only issue here but cyclists causing their own deaths.

I was demonstrating that we can not minimise poor cyclist behaviour.

Thanks for the other stats - I'll have a proper look when I'm not covered in chocolate brownie mix.

You've gone from talking about cyclists endangering pedestrians on pavements to total cycling casualties. A slightly different debate don't you think?

But I'll indulge you for a minute. Of course cyclists can pose a risk. And the person they pose most risk to is themselves, not other people. (Children in particular are prone to endangering themselves, which is why good education for kids is vital.) There are conflicting statistics in all of this. For instance this study (page 22) from London shows far more 'contributing factors' assigned to motorists than the cyclist than the Rospa stats say. And the figures for children skew things significantly too.

I do think there is a significance difference between doing something that puts yourself at risk and doing something that puts others at risk. That's why drivers have a test, to show they are supposed to be safe towards other people. Legislation exists generally to protect other people not to prevent people endangering themselves.

Cyclists need to know what they are doing, and I would encourage anybody wanting to go on their bike to make sure that they understand how to cycle on the roads. But these threads are never about 'lets help cyclists stay safe' they are always 'look at what this idiot cyclist did' which invariably turns into 'cyclists are twats'. That does nothing towards helping cyclists (or pedestrians for that matter), it just demonises cyclists and contributes to the awful way that cyclists are regarded in this country.

But no one is saying all cyclists are bad. I've not seen a single post implying that.

For some reason you are not allowed to say "this one individual is bad" when that individual happens to be a cyclist, without absolute uproar from other cyclists outraged that one of their 'tribe' is being criticised.

I can't imagine a horse rider getting outraged at a dangerous rider being criticised, or pulling out loads of statistics to prove that the handful of people and horses killed and injured by dangerous riding are somehow not significant, or defending/minimising dangerous horse riding. No, horse riders would be the first ones to jump up and talk about the importance of safe riding, and to censor those who ride unsafely. Why can't cyclists do the same?

And you won't find anyone denying that the cyclist the OP was talking about is completely wrong. What baffles me is why there is so much attention given to cyclists.

The fact that (presumably well-behaved) cyclists are trying to marginalise and minimize abuse and dangerous criminal behaviour is truly shocking. Why are you so obsessed with defending criminals who are giving you a bad name?

If this were true then yes it would be shocking. However I have not seen anyone on this thread cyclist or otherwise trying to condone or defend dangerous behaviour.

Littleprincessara no one has disagreed with the OP or tried to defend this particular cyclist or indeed any other individual who cycles in a way that puts others in danger.

If you would like to debate this sensibly then why not read the thread. Making false accusations just encourages an aggressive and defensive reaction.

The whole thrust of my argument from the beginning of this thread is that cyclist can be and often are as fallible, stupid, selfish and arrogant as many drivers. Because of this there are rules in place to protect vulnerable pedestrians. You and several others have consistently minimised the bad behaviour of cyclists because to admit to it would inconvenience you (and only slightly - i.e. instead of mounting, cycling on and then dismounting a pavement, you are being asked to push your bike on a pavement....is it really that hard?). You think that cyclists should be able to decide for themselves if what they are doing is dangerous (including cycling on the pavement) despite the evidence to suggest that many many cyclists DON'T or CAN'T assess risk properly and DO cause accidents, some of which are fatal to themselves or others.

Threads are self-selecting - they attract people who have been affected by the subject in the title. So it's not surprising that loads of folk come on with "cyclists are twats" etc, because unfortunately that is the experience of many people. That shouldn't stop reasoned debate or critical thinking about the subject matter, I am more than capable of understanding that cyclist are extremely vulnerable road users whilst also understanding that pedestrians can be even more vulnerable. Defence is not always the best form of attack, and as I said before - your unwillingness to accept that there are a lot of dangerous cyclists is not helping to keep cyclists safe (which is what I assume you really want to happen).

It has been an interesting thread. I am going to eat home-made Betty Crocker chocolate brownies and have a cup of tea and then take my two and half year old out on her bike. We shall stick to the transpath, and will most definitely not be cycling on the pavement because that girl is a menace!

Mumski - I've seen quite a few cyclists on this thread say they hate pavement cyclists too. (I've also seen a couple trying to defend cyclists on pavements - but one of those posters is a deliberate contrarian who'd argue black was white if they thought they could get a rise out of others by doing so).

Anyway, I'm a regular cyclist - it's how I do my daily commute. I absolutely hate seeing adults cycling on pavements (of the non-clearly-labelled-as-shared-paths-and-wide-enough variety). If there's a short section of your route you can't cope with, get off and push, or re-plan your route (when DS was little and I took him to nursery on my bike, I used to cycle round 3 sides of a square to avoid a steep hill that I didn't think I could tackle safely with his extra weight on the back). If you're so under-confident that you can't tackle any roads, buy a bloody bus pass.

littleprincesssara "For some reason you are not allowed to say "this one individual is bad" when that individual happens to be a cyclist, without absolute uproar from other cyclists outraged that one of their 'tribe' is being criticised."

Yes, let's look at the uproar as we "defend" one of our what the fuck is with this ridiculous 'tribe' bollocks "tribe". I have skimmed the thread and all these comments are from people who have openly stated or I know to be cyclists.

nookieSnooks Wed 21-Sep-16 17:55:33
Well it sounds like this particular cyclist was breaking the law and generally a bit thick and unreasonable. Shame on her!

LineyReborn Wed 21-Sep-16 18:38:28
I know most cyclists are ok. I'm one of them. smile
Adult cyclists on pavements knocking over children are wankers.

FrancisCrawford Wed 21-Sep-16 19:26:54
Any cyclist knocking over any pedestrian on a pavement is a wanker.

thelostboy Wed 21-Sep-16 21:19:35
Some selfish arrogant dangerous twats ride bikes on pavements and should be fined if caught.

Oysterbabe Wed 21-Sep-16 22:26:59
I'm a keen cyclist. Pavements are for pedestrians. If you're too frightened to ride on the road then walk, cycling isn't for you.

ShotsFired Thu 22-Sep-16 11:32:11
For absolute clarity - I ride a bike and I am stating for the record that the woman on the pavement was dangerous and irresponsible and 100% in the wrong. Happy now?

WheelofPan Thu 22-Sep-16 11:52:43
Well quite - no-one who rides a bike has even tried to 'defend' the woman in the OP who sounds like a right arse.

Mumski45 Thu 22-Sep-16 14:26:53
Oh and for the record OP YANBU and even as a frequent cyclist I would have done the same as you.
She showed herself up by reacting badly when you challenged her and I would also have thanked you for standing up to her.

PotofGold1186 Thu 22-Sep-16 20:45:25
And to the OP- of COURSE yanbu. She sounds like a dick. Did you really need to ask?!

StripeyMonkey1 Thu 22-Sep-16 20:54:44
OP is about one, unreasonable in my opinion, cyclist who rode on the pavement.

whatsthecomingoverthehill Fri 23-Sep-16 15:44:13
And you won't find anyone denying that the cyclist the OP was talking about is completely wrong.

It wouldn't inconvenience me at all, I don't ride on the pavement.

The one example I gave on this thread of such riding is away from any houses and very rarely has any pedestrians on (i.e. not the west end of Glasgow). If a cyclist was to go on the road there they end up with a big long line of irritated motorists for about a mile up the hill. The cyclists I see on the pavement there aren't doing it because they are scared of cars, but because they are trying not to antagonise drivers even though they would be doing nothing wrong by cycling on the road. I choose to go on a different road up the hill which has far less traffic (modifying what I'm doing to suit other road users, but hey I'm 'full of it' apparently).

"Defence is not always the best form of attack, and as I said before - your unwillingness to accept that there are a lot of dangerous cyclists is not helping to keep cyclists safe".

Define 'a lot'. My impression of these threads is that cycling misdemeanors are constantly exaggerated. littleprincessara might not care what the statistics say and base it on her impressions. But impressions can be misleading. 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.

If a cyclist comes towards me walking on the pavement and tells me to get out of the way I will in no uncertain terms tell them to get off the pavement. If another cyclist goes through a pedestrian crossing I'll ask them to stop doing it. Might not be much but it's something. But when I see yet another thread on here moaning about how a cyclist has done something wrong I wonder why. I am defensive because I see the attitudes from these threads reflected in the attitudes of people driving around me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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".

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.

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