AIBU Cyclist Twats

[TractorAndHeadphones]

Walking down lovely canals with DP. Supposed to be romantic - but every 5 minutes we were interrupted by a cyclists whizzing along! Some had the courtesy to ring the bell but even so they rode straight at us instead of around us.

This really boils my piss because cyclists always complain that cars overtake dangerously and that’s it’s their god given right to hold up traffic. But cyclists can ride straight through pedestrians?

There was enough space for a cyclist to ride alongside us if they’d been slower ; even so you don’t expect people to walk in single file on canal roads which are meant to be enjoyed slowly! There were families in front of us, mothers with prams etc. Thé cyclists were probably scared of swerving into the lake but if you can’t control your bike then dont bloody ride!
It really ruined my day.

This has also happened on pavements with people whizzing along in the middle. Even if the road is dangerous there’s no need to go that fast.
AIBU to think that cyclists are twats and should be licensed?
People often complain that cars are rude to cyclists but IMO people in general are twats. Cars can do more damage but they’re not behaving worse than cyclists.

If slowing down is a problem, then why not dismount?

[quote lochmaree]@WhyOWhyOh

this is perfectly legal and provides safety for the cyclists. you should be overtaking in a manner that gives the cyclists plenty of space anyway so it shouldn't matter whether it's one or two side by side. it is also safer for cars to overtake two abreast than two one after the other, due to the time required to be on the opposite side of the road.[/quote]
I'm sorry, that's poppycock.

I'm always very careful about giving cyclists plenty of space when I go by, and not whizzing past in a way that is rude, but it is much harder to do this when they are two (or three) abreast and they don't even make an attempt to move into the margin.

I have terrible memories on holiday of fleets of them in the road and cars backed up behind because the twats couldn't bother to make some space or even pull off from time to time to let the cars go by.

Those who won't step out of the way for a bike, I hope you are prepared for a young or inexperienced rider to skid/fall off into you. If you make them cycle on the grass (because you won't walk on it) or make them swerve at slow speed (more likely to fall off when going slowly) this is a risk

Those on bikes who won't slow down and/or who expect pedestrians to leap out of the way for them, even onto the grass, or into the mud or anywhere really ... I hope that one day you are prepared for a young child who does not understand and might jump at your dinging bell or be distracted by a duck and run into your path or for an older person who does not hear or cannot leap or get out of your way ... this is a risk, but other bear the cost so I doubt you'd care.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon a. why should they if they’re allowed to be cycling on the path? b. you try telling that to a small child and getting them to do it in time.

Because the Highway Code says so? Good enough for you?

@LobsterNapkin Suggest you read the Highway Code before crying "poppycock".

Have done. It says “Always be prepared to slow down and stop if necessary.”
Not “Always be prepared to slow down and stop if the pedestrian thinks they’re superior and can’t be arsed to share a shared path.”

That's your interpretation.

It seems for you "shared" means all yours. Did no one explain what sharing means when you were a child?

Ok, I’ll put it another way- it doesn’t say that anyone specifically has to give way to anyone else. It doesn’t need interpreting ffs.

You’re the one saying that cyclists must get off for pedestrians. Do you know what sharing means?

If slowing down is a problem, then why not dismount

Slowing down is not difficult. However it is a lot of wasted time and energy. If people were a little more considerate then everybody would be able to reach their destination without needing to interact with other people which to my mind is bliss.

Unless someone is polite I will not move. Bikes have breaks people need to use them. Tough shit really

What is your definition of polite? The tone or duration of the bell ring?

My my bike has any breaks I will be getting it checked over. Especially on the carbon forks.

If you are sharing a path, take extra care and give plenty of room to children, the elderly and disabled people. You should always be riding at a speed that would allow you to slow down and stop if necessary.”

It does look clear to me too.

I was formely another person who hated cyclist with a passion. A few years ago the place I work sold their car park and I decided it was a good juncture to get a bicyle both to save on parking costs and get fit.

Within a month my outlook at completely changed. Yes there are some complete self important dimwits that cycle but most of us are reasonable people. Now to the original poster; yes you are probably correct in that cyclists could or should slow down a bit to allow a safer overtake. However as I see this you have three real options

1. Keep holding hands and getting annoyed about the close passes
2. Go single file when a bike approaches
3. Walk somewhere else with more space or fewer cyclists

You and your partner maintaining your position on the path is everybit as rude as the close overtakes you are moaning about.

*1. Keep holding hands and getting annoyed about the close passes

1. Go single file when a bike approaches
2. Walk somewhere else with more space or fewer cyclists*

Would you like me to sit by the cycle side and give hand out coffee to the cyclists as well? Or make you dinner and clean your bathroom while am at your beck and call?

What would you say is a necessary or essential situation then? Because I would see it as an animal running out or a small child being slow to move. Not a pedestrian refusing to move on a path where neither party has right of way.

Any situation.

The code says always. How do you know who is elderly or disabled? Their disability might not be obvious or visible, to quote TFL. So you have to always be prepared to slow down or stop.

You are on wheels, you are the danger.

Cyclists bombing along shared paths with no due care are, obviously, dicks.

So are, however, peds who stubbonly stay in the middle of the path and refuse to move over unless they get given some fucking flowers or something.

It goes both ways. It's not hard to act in a considerate manner regardless of how you are chosing to travel.

It also says “if necessary” and I disagree that that automatically means a pedestrian doesn’t have to move ever.

I had the rage at our canal cyclists this morning. I know it's not all cyclists, but it's lots of them.

I went for a lovely long walk this morning. Our canal has a narrow towpath (like most) and another parallel track a couple of feet away from it, which is much wider. There are the occasional bush or tree in between the two paths, but you can cross from one to the other pretty easily - in a few spots they split and the wider track goes away from the canal for maybe 100 yards or so, but essentially it's two paths, a wide one and a narrow one. There are signs everywhere asking cyclists and horses to use the wide one, and pedestrians to use the narrow one. But today every bloody cyclist seemed to be using the narrow one, and as with the OP, they don't have bells, don't shout to warn you, just whizz up behind you and overtake without even trying to make space. I had to dive into nettles twice and nearly fell in the canal once.

Then there's a cafe at one of the locks, and there are staggered gates which are very tricky to cycle through, and a great big sign asking cyclists to dismount while they go through the lock area, where the cafe tables are. Did they? Of course not, cycling 2 abreast right through the middle of the cafe every time. In fact one cyclist chap ignored the totally empty bike racks and leant his bike against the picnic table next to the one he was using, so took 2 full picnic tables for him and his bike. Selfish buggers.

Well, if the pedestrian does not move over then it is necessary for the cyclist to slow down and stop. What else are you going to do? Run them over?

It's not up to you to decide what a pedestrian does. You are the one on a vehicle, you are the one who is the dangerous one. You have to show more consideration, whether you like it or not.

I live on the edge of the moors, it’s a lovely place.

Cyclists are not allowed on footpaths, not that it stops them whizzing down them. There are also no cycle routes across the moors, but we have large tracks torn up by mountain bikers … it’s an SSSI, and still recovering from some terrible fires. They don’t care if you tell them they aren’t supposed to be there, one if then tried to punch my husband. The landowner puts “no bike” signs, on the footpaths, but they get ripped down.

Thing is, there are bridle ways as well, that cyclists are allowed to use … but clearly not good enough.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Well, if the pedestrian does not move over then it is necessary for the cyclist to slow down and stop. What else are you going to do? Run them over?

It's not up to you to decide what a pedestrian does. You are the one on a vehicle, you are the one who is the dangerous one. You have to show more consideration, whether you like it or not.

How about, and I'm aware this is a radical proposition, people show equal consideration?

If a pedestrian sees a cyclist coming towards them, just move into single file or to the edge of the path. Everybody is happy. Equally, cyclists shouldn't stealth up behind peds and just expect them to move.

It's almost as if, when people are nice to each other, things become really, really easy.

Clearly if the pedestrian won’t move, the cyclist has not choice. My question to you is should the pedestrian move if they can?

Not if they don't have to.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

If slowing down is a problem, then why not dismount?

If cyclists dismount they actually take up more room and they still get glared at by people walking.

And of course a pedestrian should move to allow space for someone faster moving to pass (from either direction) (assuming that they are not already well over to the left on a path that is wide enough for someone to pass them).