To think if you cycle into an elderly lady

[Sexnotgender]

You should at least stop and check she’s ok?

Gobsmacked at the total lack of concern shown by the cyclist. He took a chunk out her arm and just carried on!

Hmmm, JacquesHammer I suspect our idea of 'stupid things' a cyclist might do could differ on a few crucial points. Particularly if you don't or rarely ride a bike

I would hope not. My three examples are:-

1. Stretch of tow path that is very clearly signed to dismount as it is a narrow tunnel with poor visibility. Cyclists regularly don’t, one of whom knocked a child into the canal.

1. Cyclist ran over dog in an area of the local country park where cycling is forbidden.

1. Main road through town has a left only lane, then straight ahead. Cyclist hugs the kerb only to go straight ahead when he should clearly position himself between the two lanes of traffic. I saw him do this every working day for 4 months.

Would all the people defending cyclists on this thread be happy with a system where cycling is a licensed activity akin to driving, where you have to pass a theory and practical test in order to be able to ride a bike on public roads/parks?

That would be a fair start, but I would also want to see some means of identifying them, so they can be made accountable for their actions in the same way as drivers.

And compulsory insurance.

As previous posters have already started, compulsory insurance for cyclists has not worked in some countries. And who would be expected to police it? The ever increasingly overstretched UK police force?

I want to be clear that I find that the cyclist in the original post very much in the wrong. But tarring all cyclists with the same brush is just plain wrong.

One way to reduce the number of cyclists cycling in pavements is to put in cycle paths all over the country-cycle paths that are physically seperated from both the road and the pavements. Otherwise cyclists often have to chose between cycling unprotected on the road (just look at the number of cyclists killed in London roads in the last years) or on the pavement.

Here in The Netherlands we have a very good cycle path netwerk. So there are very rarely cyclists cycling on paths here.

I come from a country where we have just gone cycle path mad.

It was bad enough there.

I really don't understand the physics behind how you're going to provide for pedestrians, bikes and cars in the ridiculously narrow roads here.

And often enough there's not even a foot path in this part of the country!

YANBU. That's disgusting behaviour, unfortunately there seems to be a lot of self-entitled cyclists. The laws really needs both enforcing and adapting to ensure pedestrian safety.
We can't even go for a walk down our canal anymore due to dangerous cyclists coming speeding down! 99% of them don't even slow down and just expect you to jump or quickly grab your toddlers out the way too... Very stressful for everyone, but especially for the elderly and parents of young children. I know a fair few people who no longer walk down there too as they don't feel safe. Cyclists should never be cycling on pedestrian pathways. Its dangerous. If a car isn't allowed down there, neither should bikes! (unless young children). If they don't feel safe in the traffic, they need to get off their bike and walk it down the pavement!

I really don't understand the physics behind how you're going to provide for pedestrians, bikes and cars in the ridiculously narrow roads here.

better cycle facilities means cyclists numbers will increase and less cars on the road (less pressure on the NHS as cycling has huge health benefits, less noise, less pollution, cleaner air).

I understand all that reasoning. What I don't understand is how you create a cycle lane on a busy road where the houses are built up to the (narrow) footpath, and the lanes for the cars are already so narrow that if the bus stops, then traffic stops.

Why is it vacuous to point out the vulnerability of pedestrians when someone rides into them on a bike, but not to point out the vulnerability of cyclists when they are hit by someone in a car?

I wondered that too. What a bizarre double standard

The problem with the original post was it was a bit like click bait.

No it wasn't! Would you prefer that they didn't post? Op was understandably shocked, I would be too.

I once cut up a cyclist (not deliberately) when I first started driving, they rode up to me car and banged on my window, I realised I must have but them up and apologised immediately and they went off.

I was shaken up because the thought of potentially hitting the cyclist was upsetting and I was very glad they were ok. Since then I've been super aware of cyclists and motorcyclists and will give them loads of space.

However I don't get that same sense of upset from cyclists on the thread towards this cyclist who knocked over the woman. They're just defensive.

It’s a particular failing in MN. Doesn’t matter what the cyclists do people will fall over themselves explaining why the cyclist couldn’t possibly be at fault.

This!

SagAloojah the "defensiveness" comes not from the original post, but from the tarring all cyclists with the same brush.

mbosnz "cycle path mad" = better Air quality and a fitter population. And where really no cycle path can be created on a road, then build you new cyclepaths away from a road but covering a similar begin and end point.

But there should still be sympathy for this poor woman. Instead some people have said the cyclist probably didn't want to be sued.

I stopped immediately for the cyclist I cut up and apologised. This cyclist should have stopped for this woman.

The cyclist in the original post was at fault. That's never been denied. For every bad cyclist that you see, there will be hundreds more bad car drivers. Every day I see cars jumping red lights, using mobile phones, not indicating, tail gating etc - all actions that are far more likely to result in a fatal accident than any wayward cyclist.

'Cycle path mad' - isn't that an oxymoron? I live in a country that is car mad and that's far worse. It's called the UK.

Cyclists are a pain the arse! Especially in London. Driving is getting harder and harder with delivery scooters and idiot cyclists.

For every bad cyclist that you see, there will be hundreds more bad car drivers

So? Do you think that makes it OK for the arsehole cyclists to ride on pavements, jump red lights, ride across pedestrian crossings, do a hit and run...? It's irrelevant whether another group is worse.

The point with this scenario is that there is no way of identifying the arsehole cyclists so they can really do what they like (unless they are unlucky enough to do it in front of a police officer)

Would it help, Soupdragon, to imagine each cyclist a car off the road? Driving is hard in London because of congestion, cars and bikes, and the concentration required is enormous. I live here too and am trying to make as many journeys by bike instead of car as possible - most of the journey times are similar, which has surprised me. Some drivers though do seem to find me and my accompanying 10yo enraging, just for being on the road. We don’t do anything to contravene the Highway Code but we do exist, that seems enough.

Would it help, Soupdragon, to imagine each cyclist a car off the road?

Why? It doesn’t give them the right to act like utter idiots and endanger other people because they’re a car off the road.

It really should be ok for someone to post that a cyclist did something ridiculous without pages of “oh but cars are soooooo much worse”.

The fact is cyclists are untraceable and can behave how they want with impunity. Not thrilling for pedestrians, right?

3. Main road through town has a left only lane, then straight ahead. Cyclist hugs the kerb only to go straight ahead when he should clearly position himself between the two lanes of traffic. I saw him do this every working day for 4 months.

I cycle every day in a large City - to work. I go over a junction exactly like this every single morning.

At LEAST once a week a car beeps and goes nuts at me for being in the right hand lane to go straight on.

Sometimes I stop them (you know when they inevitably join a queue of traffic) and ask them exactly what it is that they felt I did wrong - i.e going straight on in the straight on lane....

... you just can't win!

Of course it is OUTRAGEOUS that the cyclist hit an old lady and then rode off - utterly unacceptable that he hit her in the first place - if you are going to make the decision to cycle on the pavement due to the risk on the road (Home Office Guidelines do not condem this) then you should be riding in a way that would NEVER cause anybody to be injured in the first place.

I would never say it was okay to do anything to upset pedestrians on the pavement.

I would say that it's not okay to trot out the old lines about cyclists jumping red lights, not paying "road tax" etc etc

I have lost count of the number of times I have been shouted at while being close passed that I "don't pay road tax" - usually accompanied with "get off the road you stupid bitch".

Sometimes I stop them (you know when they inevitably join a queue of traffic) and ask them exactly what it is that they felt I did wrong - i.e going straight on in the straight on lane

you just can't win!

Of course you can, you follow the rules of the road. People who beep at you are also idiots. Cyclist in questions in my scenario just swears at cars turning left. See? Idiots everywhere.

There is a large aout of cyclists who at like dangerous bellends. If people stating this fact gets your back up, maybe try and deal with it rather than offering piss poor excuses, whataboutism or diversions

*amount
*act

There's a large amount of drivers who act like dangerous bellends whilst adding to pollution. If people stating this fact gets your back up then maybe it's time to make changes in your life.

Yes, Vulpine, thats a great example of whataboutism

Vulpine, no one has said motorists are angels.

The.thread.is.about.a.hit.and.run.cyclist.