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

My town centre has an awful problem with the electric bicycles. They can go crazy fast, with no effort from the rider.

There are asshole cyclists just like there are assholes drivers. Assholes drivers, however, are much more dangerous.

That’s because there are fewer people who cycle regularly than there are people who drive, so it’s less usual in the collective consciousness. Also there are a lot of people who hate cycling or can’t cycle themselves so don’t get it and think it’s just an odd way to behave.

. Everyone here who isn’t exactly like the average mumsnetter gets slagged off. There is a thread running today about how mobility scooters and wheelchairs should be capped at 3 miles an hour/banned from shops/banned from roads/banned from pavements/require a driving test and license etc because they are so so terribly dangerous and people are afraid for their lives when they step outside their door.

Happily, while the large number of threads on here might annoy cyclists- it’s only mumsnet

In the real world a lot more time and money is spent on policing motorists than is spent on policing cyclists. For example it is only this year the legal code was amended to make causing death by dangerous cycling a specific offence- this is a reflection of the fact that everyone knows cars are more dangerous.

This is why I voted you are being unreasonable. That statement is unreasonable, even irrational. It's inarguable that drivers are far more dangerous. Therefore, you would be wise to be more afraid of them than cyclists.

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

This is what you said:

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

I disagree that I should only direct my ire at cars because they are more dangerous- I’m equally pissed off with anyone who endangers my safety when I’m out.

The fact that one group does it more frequently doesn’t mean I don’t notice it when another group does it.

Cyclists generally use one lane of a two lane road. Pedestrians tend to use the full width of a shared use pavement. Cars can pass bikes as soon as there is not a car coming the other way, cyclists can’t pass pedestrians until they move over to take up just one half of the space. That’s the difference here. Note these are generalisations, but this whole thread is based on them!

Cyclists ride on the left, cars drive on the left, everyone overtakes on the right, pedestrians walk on the right so as to walk towards traffic. It has a known thing on the roads, so ‘conflict’ between users has a set of rules. On shared use paths my experience is cyclists will still ride on the left, but those on foot don’t walk on the right ‘towards traffic’ but everyone would rub along better if they did. The pedestrians could see the cyclist coming so no surprises, and the cyclist can pass by moving to their right (to the ‘wrong’ side of the path) to pass.

also FWIW, there are twats using all modes of transport, and there are loads of normal, law abiding citizens using all modes of transport. It gets a bit tiring that if you are a pedestrian all cyclists are aresholes (they aren’t), if you are a cyclist all drivers are arseholes (they also aren’t) and maybe we could all just appreciate the challenges of the other modes of transport and try to rub along. As someone who lives on a big network of shared paths, and uses them both with a dog and on a bike, awareness of your surroundings is key, so not on phones, not on AirPods, but also means I’ve never had someone cut me up or shout at my dog when they overtake me on their bikes because I more often than not know they are coming, and have my dog on a short lead. When I’m on my bike I always appreciate and say thanks to pedestrians who behave similarly, with a bit of awareness of their surroundings.

I am a cyclist (just did my usual Sunday100km spin today and loved it). I don’t think I annoyed any cars and no cars annoyed me - in fact there was a bit of thank you waving and beep-beep! - the friendly ones (I always wave a thanks to cars once they’ve passed our group in appreciation for not running too close to us). I don’t jump red lights and I’m the one in our group who bangs on about safety.

Anyway. I am also scared of cyclists in cities. It can be so so hard to see them and there are so many more things to keep an eye on.

i have never had an altercation with a cyclist, but I used to live in Cambridge and my eyes would be on stalks driving around for fear. My Kids in back of my car and you need to concentrate in biked-up cities - plus bikes with little toddlers in those wooden boxes!!! Oh my god. No. I agree with OP it’s harder / more prevalent with all the Deliveroo type businesses too. Not that they do anything wrong but you have to be very consciously looking all the time for bikes.

Cyclists generally use one lane of a two lane road. Pedestrians tend to use the full width of a shared use pavement. Cars can pass bikes as soon as there is not a car coming the other way, cyclists can’t pass pedestrians until they move over to take up just one half of the space. That’s the difference here.

This is very area dependent. It's pretty much unheard of where I live in outer London that there will ever not be a car "coming the other way".

I live near a long road with a steep hill on parts. It's between 30 and 60mph limit depending on the part. Yes it's "only" about 3.5 miles long. But 3.5 miles behind a cyclist who is struggling up a hill slowly is irritating. You cannot overtake as there is ALWAYS a car coming the other way. Plus lots of the road on the 60mph section is a solid white line.
And there is a couple lay-bys they could pull into if they wanted to let cars go past. But i think I've only ever seen one in the past year do that.
Do they have to? No of course not. The same way pedestrians do not HAVE to move over if they don't want to. It's just a common courtesy.
I'm normally not in a rush so plodding along behind a cyclist normally doesn't bother me. But I just irked when cyclists say things like "how long am i meant to go wait behind a slow pedestrian" etc. The answer, like with cars, is until they can or or choose to move over.

YABU! Many drivers are unlicensed and uninsured. As for accountability, around 85 people are kiled or seriously injured EVERY DAY on road in the UK, and in the majority of cases drivers suffer no more than a fine and points on their license. On the other hand, fewer than 2 people per day are injured by cyclists. In the very rare (and well publicised) cases where a cyclist causes a death, there is a jail sentence. You need to get a grip on reality!

Shared paths don’t always have demarcation for walking or cycling- it’s a free for all. So cyclists have to give way and pedestrians don’t have to walk in any particular way.

They are utter stupidity- if the space must be shared then the cycle lane should be clearly marked then pedestrians know it’s there and should keep out of it (although plenty won’t, and cyclists will have to give way anyway).

I'm more a cyclist than I am a driver and I'm mostly with you on this. I try to pull in to let cars pass when possible, and tend to be the one in any group encouraging this. I probably wouldn't want to stop on a road that's uphill for 3 miles, because I'd never get going again. But if I knew cars had been behind for ages, I might stop. This is both for the convenience of the cars behind and for my safety. I don't want increasingly irate drivers behind me!

I thank pedestrians on shared paths who move to the side, and hate dinging my bell or calling out to them to ask them to move. I thank them because they've been kind. But I will add that as a pedestrian, I know that stepping to one side of a path is an incredibly minor inconvenience compared to pulling over and stopping my bike in a layby on an uphill slog. There will be times where I would ignore the layby because I calculate the effort for me to stop against the benefit to the cars behind me. I've never done that calculation when walking and a bike comes up behind me, because the effort is negligible. So it not a completely comparable situation

@Thisismynewusernamedoyoulikeit
I agree it's not totally comparable no. But as you say if you're going up hill sometimes you'll just need to put others out a bit by making them wait. It happens. It's life. You COULD move over, but for your own reasons you don't. (I fully understand why and I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning)
But yes sometimes pedestrians might be on the phone or listening to music and not fully listening out to move out the way instantly as a cyclist comes up behind them.
If someone is just being plain rude and blocking the path I agree that's bad and they shouldn't be doing that. But I don't like it when cyclists complain that a pedestrian just being a bit absorbed in their own things is selfish and annoying by holding up a cyclist for a few seconds by not instantly moving.
If a cyclist isn't being selfish for choosing not to instantly move over for drivers when they can, pedestrians aren't being selfish for daring to listen to their music while taking a peaceful walk along a canal.
I think if everyone just accepted the fact sometimes they might get held up for a few minutes occasionally life would be easier. Cars get held up by cyclists. And cyclists by pedestrians. Unless either of them is being done deliberately and with malice then it's just one of those things.

@Possinass I’d agree you are correct it’s area dependant. I am not in London, or a major city for that matter, so most of my cycling is done on country roads with minimal traffic, however this is probably also why these threads get a lot of cyclists backs up. My commute route has zero traffic lights on it. One of my longer weekend rides has one set, so I don’t have any need to jump them. I’m quite glad of the rest. It does however mean that I’m a perfectly law abiding cyclist. I have a helmet, I have insurance, I paid more VAT on my bike than road fund licence is on my car (which I also pay), I have a driving licence so I’m ‘trained’ to use the roads and I have British Cycling training. So it gets a bit frustrating to see ‘sick of all cyclists’ etc posts week in week out, that just don’t acknowledge that’s it’s probably city centre centric where traffic is shite and there are loads of deliveroo riders etc who from what I have seen in London are a law unto themselves and tbh could do with a few being knocked off to see if it sorts their abilities out (half lighthearted). I put them in the category of ‘twat who happens to be on a bike’ though rather than ‘cyclist’ which I associate with people who do so properly.

I do have to use a number of shared use paths on my commute from the station to work though, and they are probably 3 or 4m wide, they don’t need de-marking as bikes and pedestrians to certain sides, rather they are advised to be used like a road, so bikes travel on the left each side and pedestrians walk on the right. There’s a set of written guidance for using them where I work, and it’s written to not walk (or cycle) more than 2 abreast and to follow the right/left as above imagining it as a country lane. Most of the time it seems to work OK but you do get the 4 or 5 wide with a dog and a buggy that don’t quite get it.

As to why cyclists don’t tend to pull in on hills, if it’s steep, once you stop you are probably having to walk the rest of the way. Momentum is much more of a thing on a pushbike than it is in a car or on foot where you can easily stop and then get going again. Maybe more people should have to cycle (and also spend a session in an HGV in a controlled environment) as part of the driving test to learn the limitations of road going vehicles that are not a ford focus. Because I cycle, I’d give way to a cyclist battling their way up a hill regardless of ‘right of way’ because they do have it toughest there. Sounds like you are equally as considerate, and that’s great. I don’t think cyclists aren’t pulling in to inconvenience a car but just because it’s not just a case of letting one go and going again if it’s a steep hill, it’s pushing your bike to the top and a cyclist pushing their bike is twice as wide and half the speed of a cyclist riding a bike.

I actually agree with you, although I'm usually the first to point out that bikes and horses have just as much right to be on the road as cars do.

We need our infrastructure to be built safe for cyclists on the road so that they aren't forced onto footpaths.

I was once volunteering on a class school trip, first time ever. The teacher explained the procedure for crossing the road - wait for a space, then one adult stands facing traffic so that if anyone comes along you can hold your hand up so they slow down/stop, and the group can finish crossing safely with the other adults supervising.
Group was half way across a road, no cars in sight, when a cyclist came bombing along the road towards us. I held my hand out as directed, loads of time for him to slow down - except instead he swerved around me, didn't even brake, and cycled straight through the group of small children, at high speed.
I was very, very shaken, my heart pounding, physically shaking.
And FURIOUS.
The other volunteers, who were more seasoned than I was, looked a bit bemused when I mentioned it and said - oh that happens all the time...

In 2022, 385 pedestrians were killed in Great Britain, whilst 5,901 were reported to be seriously injured (adjusted) and 13,041 slightly injured (adjusted).

From the gov.uk site.

Bet you can't name all of these people who were killed by motorised vehicles.

Yet you can name a person who walked out in front of a cyclist - because it's extremely rare.

Statistically, cars are far, far more dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists.

If I do see a badly behaved cyclist, it’s usually a delivery rider. People need to stop the addiction to delivery services (I have no idea how people even afford it, to be honest).

Cycling in the UK is a bit of a weird culture though. It’s less safe than in other countries, so those who do it are more likely to be men with a lot of testosterone and risk tolerance. This will inevitably affect cycling standards as a whole. If it’s any comfort, bear in mind that if you take these guys’ bikes away, they will just end up behind the wheels of cars instead, and do even more mayhem that way.

Cycling isn’t going away though. The UK’s population is increasing and getting increasingly dense. There is a huge crisis in housing, and nobody ever seems to want to build on green belt land. Building more buildings and taller buildings within existing suburbs, inner cities and brownfield sites is going to raise the inevitable question of “OK, so where are all the cars going to go?”

If a densely populated country wants to avoid a slide into complete gridlock, shifting people towards more public transport, bikes and walking is just something you have to do and cope with, there is not a lot of alternative.

Everyone driving everywhere is OK if you are Australia or the US, where there is a lot of land, very low population density, and people are OK with cities sprawling to a huge size to accommodate all the cars.

I see two main differences recently.

The most significant imo is the increase in electric bikes and scooters. I think these are really dangerous to pedestrians, and even cars. They seem to shoot up out of nowhere at times and can difficult to see even when doing the right thing. But lots seem to use them irresponsibly, especially the ones they don't own but rent from some city scheme. I also see people who I think are not up to controlling them.

The other thing I've found is the proliferation of new types of infrastructure seems sometimes to cause issues. For example, at my mums, you come out of a side lane onto a busy, wide street, wth regular busses. You need to cross a wide, busy sidewalk, and a line of parked cars. Now, however, there is a bike lane too, which is protected by a low cement media topped with sort of green metal bollards all in a row.

It was always a tricky place to get out, but now trying to see the traffic coming is even more difficult. You have to try and keep an eye on any bikes approaching quickly while crossing the pedestrian area. Then you are sitting in the middle of the bike land trying to see past the parked cars to know if its safe to turn out into the traffic. The bollards seem to block the view even more and make it harder to judge how far away things are.

I've just stopped going into the lane at all, but I really think it will cause an accident. Residents need to go in to get to their parking.

In this case, we need to get rid of the parked cars. Public infrastructure shouldn't be used to store private property.

I am utterly fed up of cyclists not wearing helmets. Having right of way over cars doesn’t change the consequences of being hit by one. Wear a helmet and for fucks sake put helmets on your children.

Be less arrogant.

That won't happen. They did get rid of the parking on the other side of the road when they put in the bike lane in. But it's very heavily used parking for the houses on the street, and also for businesses and offices.

I don't think they should have added the bike lanes at all. They should have taken a route through the parallel few streets, which are residential only, closed them to non residential traffic, and given the bikes right of way there. If bikers want to use the main street they can do so in the stream of traffic, if they don't want to, use the parallel street.

What is particularly stupidly designed for pedestrians in London is crossings where the vehicle traffic is coming from one way on a particular side of the road, but there is also a two way cycle lane on that side, but that isn't obvious when you are tryjng to cross the road.

I wear a helmet every time, but how does this affect you as a pedestrian, fellow cyclist or a driver?

Unless you intentionally mean to knock them off their bike, I don't get why this is bothers some people. Just treat them the samw,e and give them the same amount of room as you would if they were wearing one.

My commute route has zero traffic lights on it. One of my longer weekend rides has one set, so I don’t have any need to jump them. I’m quite glad of the rest. It does however mean that I’m a perfectly law abiding cyclist

This attitude from some cyclists is the problem.

There isn’t ever a need to jump lights.

The fact there aren’t any lights shouldn’t mean you are a law abiding cyclist- you should just be a law abiding cyclists.

It doesn’t matter if you fancy a rest or not, you stop at all red lights.

Everyone using the road should be following the rules- they aren’t optional based on what type of vehicle you are using, what route you take or what mood you are in.