Cyclists have made my home city too stressful to live in any more

[valianttortoise]

Cycling on the pavement (on e-bikes, racing bikes, whatever) at speed, silently, no lights often, no pausing for pedestrians to cross at zebra crossings or even green men. An e-bike nearly hit me yesterday while a policeman was literally standing there watching (outside a government building in case you're wondering where on earth I saw a live one) and he did nothing, just looked at me like "wow that was close!"

I can't handle it any more it's miserable. I can't drive so it's not a car thing it's a pedestrian safety thing.

I also think seeing that it's fine to do this, in balaclavas often, is sending a message that crime and bad behaviour in general are ok. No one will stop you.

Some men (boys? hard to tell in balaclavas) on e-bikes provided by the council took an angle grinder into a busy central square last week and just calmly cut out bicycles from stands to steal them (obviously a crime I feel conflicted about in itself but how long until they realise they can just mug pedestrians at knifepoint? It was 3pm, bright sunshine).

I find it kind of hard to believe what we're just supposed to live with now. No safe spaces for walking - forget about it if you're visually impaired.

If you live somewhere with no antisocial cyclists where is it please as I'd like to join you.

What city is it, OP?
A city means at least 100k people, so not identifying you to say which city.

I would say it's the worst city in the UK for pedestrian safety around cyclists. A combination of shit entitled cyclist culture (despite possibly also having the best pavement connections and public transport of any city) and insane cycle paths facilitated by a council that wanted Active Travel Budget moolah but didn't want to pay for someone with even normal levels of health and safety awareness.

See if you can guess.

You don't NEED your car, you should just walk.

See how that sounds?

Your car is far, far more likely to kill or injure a pedestrian than my bike is.

Birmingham? How would I know?
How can you say "worst in UK" at balancing peds & cyclists unless you've spent a lot of time walking around all the other cities.

Not if you have loads of parking for bikes

Milton Keynes?
Glasgow?
Reading?

Do people need to drive their cars?

Not Ipswich or Norwich or Leeds...
York?

London?

Honestly, I just want to get safely to where I need to go, riding with courtesy in spaces that I'm legally entitled to be. And I'd like to be given the same courtesy in return.

Bristol... Cambridge... Exeter ... Peterborough ... St. Albans ... Sheffield... Aberdeen...

E-bike injuries are a massive burden, say surgeons www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ejgrw9yepo

So we get rid of all cars so there is space for bikes? That's unrealistic. The problem is on residential roads, where people live. Round here they take bikes home from say the railway station after a night out. Older kids use them to go to school and leave them outside hoping the bike will still be there next day. People visit the park to go for a cycle but leave it here and get the bus home.

They are leaving the bikes at the point where they don't want them any longer. They are not going to take them to a parking area several streets away.

We can't use these bikes as my daughter has epilepsy. We have to drive her everywhere. I would be very unhappy if the council took away all on street parking to make parking spaces for bikes. They already removed the bus lanes for cycle lanes. It is all about helping cyclists at the expense of the elderly, disabled, people with buggies etc.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kn0zlyz1ro.amp

I visit Edinburgh quite regularly and have to say I don't understand why the council insist on all the cycle lanes and traffic lights which let cyclists go before cars etc. With the combination of Edinburgh’s climate and hills, who in their right mind thinks it’s going to be the next Amsterdam??

More space for bikes does not mean no space for cars.

Cycle lanes and cyclists traffic lights are safety measures, it doesnt have to be amsterdam

No, if you have real, safe bike infrastructure, then things become more accessible for most people. In general, people with epilepsy are more likely to be able to ride a bike than they are to be able to drive a car. I myself have had periods of not being able to drive for medical reasons, but could ride a bike.

Secondly, if you have bike infrastructure good enough that people actually want to ride, then there is a lot more room on the road for those who really need to drive. A few extra parking spaces is of no help if the whole city is driving! ( See my earlier post about wanting to park in town as if it were 1983).

Your point? The traditional get-away vehicle is a car. Shall we ban those, too?

My point?? We were playing guess the city, that’s my guess.

Oh right, sorry.

Do you think cyclists stand on the pedals (and hence backside in the air) for fun?

Generally I don't need to, but if you are going up any type of rise, or are accelerating, it can become necessary.

Even the slightest rise is noticeable on a bike, and sometimes I need all my weight on the pedals in order to maintain enough forward momentum so I don't fall off!

Amsterdam is Amsterdam not because of any Dutch predisposition to cycling - it used to be filled with cars just like our cities - but because of Dutch road safety campaigns like StopDeKinderMoord that were due to children being killed. This led to the development of the Sustainable Safety approach that aims to standardise street design and reduce conflict between users.

Given that this has been so successful in the Netherlands (including higher driving satisfaction rates), then there is a real question about why our country isn’t learning for it to reduce collision rates.

If anyone wants to find out more about the Dutch campaigns (and they are well worth reading about), there’s a good account in Peter Walker’s book Bike Nation.

As for the hills, there are solutions (such as mountain bike gears) and not everyone needs to cycle - but given that not everyone can afford a car or is able to drive we do need safe cycle routes and other ways to travel.

We have some of the best cycling infrastructure in the country. The LA bid for money for a mini Holland project and was granted £30 million. There is a state of the art cycle storage at the railway station and proper cycle lanes, both directions on the main roads. We have floating bus stops too. They have taken out most of the bus lanes as a result, which clearly impacts the elderly and disabled, who are more likely to use a bus than a bike. Btw I was on a bus going into town earlier and a cyclist was trying to cycle past the bus on the inside but there was so little room, it was so dangerous. But there is a state of art cycle lane on that road and he wasn't using it. Cyclists often won't use these cycle lanes for some reason.

This article may come across as biased but it does include detailed info on the increases on each new cycle lane route https://www.kingstonconservatives.com/news/kingston-cycling-disaster-revealed

But the whole problem with that project is that the infrastructure that was built is still not fit for purpose, despite cost. Honestly, I don't think the designers of the Kingston project have ever actually been on a bicycle. It's downright dangerous.

I actually agree with the article on this one! We need GOOD cycling infrastructure. What was delivered in Kingston is terrible.

If a cyclist is not using a cycle lane, there is a reason. Cyclists really don't want to tangle with traffic or pedestrians. If the lane is good, cyclists will be on it. However, there are so, so many unuseable ones. And yes, a bike lane may look good to someone who doesn't spend a lot of time on a bike, but that does not make it useable.