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

Ah, the weekly bash a cyclist thread.

You notice the shit ones, not the 95% plus of us who are just going about our day, following the rules of the road. Same as you notice the idiot drivers.

At different points of the week, I am in turns, a pedestrian, a cyclist and a car driver. I must be universally hated by everyone.

Exactly. Some people get cross if you call out politely. Some get cross if you use a bell. Some get cross if you don't say anything.

I think it's worse as cycling is much more popular and encouraged by government, local authorities and health officials. I live in southwest London and there are more cyclists than ever locally as well as cyclists in Richmond Park who think they are in the Tour de France!

At least cars rarely take their entire journey driving on the pavement.

You do know that millions of journeys are made every week by uninsured and /or banned car drivers? And that over 99% of pedestrian deaths / serious injuries on pavements are caused by drivers? Or that over 99% of pedestrians killed by someone jumping the lights are killed by a vehicle?

Bad cycling should be called out as much as bad driving but the reality is that vehicles posed the biggest danger to pedestrians, not vehicles.

And yet many more pedestrians are hurt/ killed by cars on the pavement than by cyclists.

Oh well that’s ok then. Two wrongs definitely make a right.

Your feelings don't trump the actual statistics though.

Motor vehicles are far more of a risk to you as a pedestrian in terms of death and serious injury than bicycles

Humans are pretty terrible at assessing risk as you are proving here.

The point obviously being that if you are actually worried about safety you should direct your ire at motorists.

No. The problem is arrogant and dangerous cyclists.

99%? Bollocks.

If you're going to make up statistics then so am I. How about "150% of motorists have drunk at least three bottles of wine"? It's about as likely to be true as your statement is.

It's unfair demonisation like this that is resulting in violent attacks by car occupants:
https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-pushed-and-seriously-injured-car-passenger-309151
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-man-calls-cctv-keep-33133646
https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/cyclist-knocked-off-his-bike-by-the-passenger-of-a-passing-car-near-ashington-prompting-police-investigation-4631872

Locally to me, a car driver deliberately hit a cyclist. Recorded yelling "I'm going to fucking kill you" as he used his vehicle as a weapon. What did he get for what looks like an open-and-shut case of attempted murder? He got a smack on the wrist for "driving without due car and attention". Amazing that he even got that considering that 90% of hit-and-run drivers get clean away.

Forget about the Mumsnet trope of burying a lazy husband under the patio, if you ever want to get away with murder then just make it look like an RTA.

Unless you are 104 years old, you have never paid a "road tax" hypothecated to the construction and maintenance of roads. Infrastructure is paid for from general taxation, and Vehicle Excise Duty is paid into general taxation, with those who pollute the most charged a middling sum for the privilege of filling our lungs with particulate matter.

This may be true but as a pedestrian living in a city, on a day to day basis, I am more aware of and impacted by the negative behavior of cyclists.

Most days, I hear a bicycle bell dinging behind me whilst I am walking on the pavement. Or cut off whilst crossing the road. I know they don't all do it, the majority do wait. But just yesterday I saw a very close accident when a boy ran to cross for a green man and a cyclist sailed through the red light and very nearly hit him. Our main street is also full of restaurants and at certain points is riddled with deliveroo and Uber cyclists and use up a lot of pavement space.

When I am visiting home and driving, I am much more impacted by motorists.

No, that isn’t a point, obvious or otherwise.

Cars killing people doesn’t mean that cyclists don’t also kill people, or make their killing any less wrong.

There are fewer people killed by cyclists than by motorists, but they aren’t less dead.

I shall pull over when I deem it safe to do so, and not before. On a 60mph single carriageway trunk road that probably will mean five minutes of held-up traffic because that's how long one needs to go along this particular road before getting to a safe refuge where I would be able to start safely again. I'd rather not have to cycle along that trunk road, but when the trains are replaced by buses I have no choice. The fact that someone might have to spend an extra four minutes in their air-conditioned weatherproof box as a result is not a priority concern of mine.

But that's exactly my point?
You say you don't care about how long the cars have to wait behind you.
But I was responding to a cyclist that asked how long they are expected to wait behind a slow pedestrian? Surely the answer is the same. As long as it takes.
Why should pedestrians potentially have to squeeze themselves out the way on narrow canal paths in order to not inconvenience a cyclist? But cyclists can inconvenience car drivers for as long as it takes?

The risk of being killed by a cyclist is ridiculously small. Almost zero. Not at all comparable to the risk of being killed by a motorist.

As a pedestrian I found cyclists a nuisance. As a new driver I find them even more of a nuisance. They just don't mix with other traffic - whether it's pedestrians on the pavement or cars on the road.

True they aren’t any less dead but when 60% of the deaths are caused by car drivers, 39.5% other vehicles and 0.5% cyclists everyone’s ire is misdirected.

The pedestrian (in the PP's case) had a safe opportunity to move over. Canal towpaths were designed for horses and their handlers to pass other horses and their handlers (you can still see this happening in Llangollen, they lower the rope underneath the barge). The pedestrian could have moved to the side away from the water and the PP could then have passed them at walking pace, exactly as two pedestrians walking in opposite directions would pass each other. Or for that matter a horse would have passed another horse. But the pedestrian was (due to their tech) oblivious to everything around them so continued walking down the middle.

Is it misdirected or is it inclusively directed?

Personally I’m capable of disliking both dangerous drivers and dangerous cyclists, while knowing that one is statistically more dangerous. I’m also capable of knowing it’s just as unpleasant to be injured or killed by any vehicle.

The insistence that we should ignore the issues caused by cyclists because cars cause more issues is a major part of why a lot of people think cyclists are dickheads.

As we should all be taught as children, two wrongs don’t make a right, and ‘he did it too Miss!’ isn’t an excuse.

No one is proposing that we ignore the issues posed by dangerous cyclists. I'd prefer to devote a proportionate amount of energy according to the danger posed. Despite the statistics, I don't see 199 threads devoted to dangerous drivers for every thread moaning about cyclists. It's as if cyclists are held to a higher standard than motorists.

If you read back, you'll note that I was not excusing poor cyclists at all.

Merely pointing out that if you are concerned about being hurt on a pavement, then you are much more likely to hit by a car than a cyclist.

But we all know threads like this aren't about safety, not really. Just tedious competitive anti-cycling bullshit.