To be sick of cyclists making pedestrians feel unsafe

[OptimismvsRealism]

Life is so much worse than it was ten years ago in cities precisely because of this

I do find them dangerous but... Car drivers tend to respect their responsibilities more than cyclists. Cyclists think they can do what they like

wait, you think drivers killing and seriously injuring over 40 people on the pavement in the last year is tending to be "responsible"

https://hellorayo.co.uk/hits-radio/bristol/news/man-dies-after-car-driven-onto-pavement-in-gloucester/

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/pedestrian-dies-after-car-mounts-9334424

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2024-04-15/child-killed-and-two-women-injured-in-rtc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-66548245

https://www.wiltshire999s.co.uk/two-arrested-man-killed-pavement-bristol/

People travel in different modes of transport and all modes of transport will have idiots, but those on foot will rarely kill, those on bikes a little more often and those with the biggest metal surrounding them far more frequently

That doesn’t mean cyclists get to use the pavement instead

thats not what this minister stated

Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on the pavement, as long as they do so considerately

www.cyclinguk.org/news/goodwill-reiterates-footway-cycling-guidance

I mean, that's just not true.

A typical moped will weigh about 200kg, my road bike weighs less than 10kg. A moped has a 50cc engine which can go at about 40-50mph, typically a cyclist will average maybe 15mph. Even an e-bike weights significantly less than any moped and will be restricted to providing assistance up to 15mph.

The way to improve safety on the roads is by removing the most dangerous vehicles - cars - by encouraging people to walk and cycle, not by making it a beauricratic nightmare to jump on a bike to get a pint of milk from the shops, and by spending money on properly designed segregated infrastructure rather than half-arsed bits of paint on the road.

It's also a complete facily to say that cyclists aren't accountable. Of course they are. Insurance doesn't remove liability. Lack of a registration doesn't provide some sort of protection against possible prosecution.

GasPanic

the Tory government responded negatively to the requirement to have registration etc on 7th December 2021 and gave their reasonings. A labour gov. will be even further from doing this than a right wing gov.

Oh I am. But don't dismiss the issue as "cyclists should just ride in the bike lanes".

Why does this attitude not surprise me. A cyclist hitting a pedestrian is still likely to seriously injure that pedestrian. I’ve nearly been victim to it and I will absolutely not make way on the pavement that is my right of way for an adult cyclist just because they are scared to ride on the road. Pedestrians have priority on pavements end of story. And no cyclists are not being properly held to account for injuries to pedestrians caused by them. It seems some cyclists believe they should be allowed anywhere they like.

Pointing out hyperbole that is grossly factually incorrect isn't "an attitude".

And bo, no one is advocating that cyclists should have right of way on footpaths. They are simply advocating that cars shouldn't completely dominate the cities.

My attitude is one of proportional assessment of risk and of how to actually improve things.

Sorry if that surprises you, I guess it would if you just want a tedious thread of cyclist bashing. Note, for example I have in no way defended pavement cyclists - adult cyclists belong on the roads, but that does require drivers to actually not actively try to run them off them.

This is the biggest crock of nonsense generalisation I have ever read on Mumsnet, and that's saying something.

I don't know where you all live, but in my neck of the woods the main issue on the pavements is vans and cars parking on them, often actually driving on and off them while a pedestrian is in the vicinity. If you are "lucky", they leave enough space to get past. If not, you are forced into the road.

Cyclists are annoying when they ride on the pavements at speed but it's really not the big issue of the day. Pavement parking has to stop.

Everyone should be considerate of other people travelling, pedestrians are at the top of the hierarcy as they are the most vulnerable. It sounds truly awful what what happened to the poster who has a broken ankle and no wonder she is angry.

How do we as a society change some people to be respectful of others whilst travelling? as this would reduce the number of deaths and life changing injuries of people using the highways

I suggest that you refrain from taking holidays in the Netherlands then. Next to no one wears a helmet there. Your blood pressure would be through the roof. And yet the traffic death rate there is lower than Australia's, where helmets are mandatory.

Googling moped mass I get 150-200 pounds which is 70-90 kgs.

A significant amount are limited to under 30 mph.

You didn't even make it out the starting blocks so I won't bother with the rest.

The clue is in the name. Moped. You can pedal it like a bike.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

It is an offence to cycle on the pavement (and many other things).

What you linked to is a 10 year old article from a the cycling minister asking police not to issue the fines that cyclists who ignore the rules are subject to.

Its further evidence of cyclists expecting to do what they like with impunity.

I'm still fuming at the very middle-class dad who let his small daughter (maybe 4yo) zoom at me bang in the middle of the pavement a few months ago, without any consideration. I did shout 'she's going way too fast' and of course he ignored me. I wish I'd been less polite now.
And also the mother and her two kids (two bikes in total) whom I walk past three days a week on the school run. I have been getting out of their way for close to two years now and she's never managed a smile or a thank you.

A seatbelt makes a massive difference in a high speed crash. A bike helmet is only rated for minor knocks and there is some evidence that wearing them encourages drivers to take risks.

Yanbu OP, I was nearly wiped out by a hooded psycho pavement cyclist yesterday. A pushchair or small dog would have had no chance.

It is way worse than 10 years ago. The teens are now just doing whatever they like and cannot be stopped without physical intervention. That isn't possible in most cases. If you say anything you just get sworn at, spat on or insulted. It's almost like they're trying to provoke a reaction.

People who choose to cycle have problems with a lack of infrastructure. It’s annoying when you want to cycle and it’s made awkward for you. That is one issue. Better infrastructure would be a good thing.

Too many cyclists use that as one excuse (of many) to ride dangerously. That is another issue.

What century are you living in? Mopeds haven't had pedals in years. A modern moped is a scooter (like mods used to ride) but with an engine no larger than 50cc.

The dry weight (i.e. without fuel) of the first one that came up on Google was 89kg. A bicycle weighs around 10kg. That's a significant difference in mass.
https://www.mopeds.co.uk/50cc-moped-panther.html

Mopeds are supposedly limited to 30mph. I'd have to be going down a decent hill on a clear open road to get anywhere close to that on a bicycle. No chance on a pavement.

Funnily enough I have holidayed in the Netherlands many times.
I did note that many cyclists do indeed not wear helmets, you're totally right. They also in the vast majority of cases have their own cycle lanes and are not weaving in and out of motor traffic.
Really not comparable, is it?

Ok, so lets accept 70-90kg, which is completely atypical. That's around 10x the mass of a typical bike. Maybe 8x, if we are being generous, and sill capable of sustaining speeds way above a pedal bike.

So, by any measure, nowhere near "the same" even if we ignore, y'know, the facts of what a moped actually is.

You mean that the only reason to wear a helmet (when not racing or mountain biking) is the risk of being hit by a car? Again, it seems like cars are the problem. Perhaps it's time to start doing something about them rather than blaming the clothing choices of the victims of traffic violence.

They are comparable.

You can get 100kg person riding a heavy bike with e-assist (about 20 kgs) and a 50 kg person riding a lightweight moped.

Bikes are probably more of a threat to pedestrians because of prevalence and proximity. And the fact that cyclists tend to take less care.

I'm pretty sure that if someone was hit by a cyclist at 20 mph or a moped at 20 mph they would report pretty similar experiences.

Apart from the fact that the moped rider would have mandatory insurance to pay for the consequences of their actions.

They are compariable if you do your very, very best to ignore actual facts and use extreme outlyers to try to prove a nonsensical point. On that I agree.

Just about.

This sounds nice, but in reality being at full alert constantly like this, where you feel you need to divide your attention too much, and the outcomes if you fail are life and death, isn't very sustainable for most people.

There's no question that in a lot of places traffic levels are too high, and there is something to be said for slowing traffic by making sure people need to pay attention, but I think the current trend to making things very complex is likely to have serious consequences.

This is a significant thing with system design - in a complex system which depends on every element working right every time, there will be failures, and they tend to be catastrophic when they happen.