Cyclist mows down Sydenham pedestrian

[Voyageur]

... well you don't know anything about me

Yes I do

<duck>Stuart</duck>

You know about my walking habits? If so, that sounds a little creepy

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Voyageur]

I'm with you and V on anti-social cycling

Good.

But it appears you two may also be against social cycling though it may be because you really haven't thought it through.

Then you are taking liberties with your extrapolation.

I have no issue with cycling per se, and an all for designated cycling lanes. If London could be flattened and re-built then I would happily see cycle lanes meandering throughout. Sadly we are stuck with our largely narrow pavements and roads and what I am against is people cycling along pavements that are not designated as cycle routes, e.g. on the pavements of Crystal Palace triangle because they want to save themselves a couple of minutes. There is a good reason why pavement cycling is banned on most pavements, and that is because it presents a hazard to pedestrians.

Furthermore, just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't make them misguided or unable to grasp points.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[stuart]

I have no issue with cycling per se, and an all for designated cycling lanes. If London could be flattened and re-built then I would happily see cycle lanes meandering throughout. Sadly we are stuck with our largely narrow pavements and roads and what I am against is people cycling along pavements that are not designated as cycle routes, e.g. on the pavements of Crystal Palace triangle because they want to save themselves a couple of minutes. There is a good reason why pavement cycling is banned on most pavements, and that is because it presents a hazard to pedestrians.

V - I'm afraid this is received opinion rather than fact. Our roads are not particularly narrow and our pavements are wide enough to accommodate car parking! Many Dutch & Danish cities would love to have a high street as wide as Sydenham Road and many have shown how you can accommodate everybody with roads narrower than the Triangle. The Triangle, of course is designed to be as difficult as possible to cycle and optimised for corralling cars despite all three councils commitment to reverse the balance. It is a real incitement to ride on the pavement!

You will also find the cycling lane provision in the UK to be equally despised by both motorist and cyclist alike. Indeed the Government's own bike training programme recommends you don't use most of them as they are too dangerous! What we have is an almighty and costly mess. Dare I say we then shout and bitch about the symptoms (traffic delays, high transport costs, road rage, obesity ...) and not address a solution. Solutions are there. Happiness is there (is it an accident that Denmark is the happiest country?).

Instead we get unhelpful stuff from you and Michael. I'm not getting at you in particular as it is mirrored in spades in the cyclist forum with anti-motorist rants. A totally unnecessary and costly war. Its true I don't know about your transport modes. But if you were in Amsterdam or Copenhagen I would guess you would be a happy, pretty and healthy cyclist and would be writing very different stuff. Walking and driving would be a more pleasant experience too.

I will leave you and this debate with two videos. One of Utrecht in a country that, like us, aspired to change transport modes but, unlike us, achieved it. Heaven or Hell? (Oh Michael do wait till 3.11 to spot a pavement cyclist - a visiting Londoner?). The second, by contrast is a video I discovered yesterday which shows a typical London experience - except that the cyclist managed to keep his cool more than most I fear:

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q-ej1eihoU[/youtubes]

[youtubes]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qycF0raqpg[/youtubes]

Stuart

[michael]

Well I guess we are not going to convince Stuart that cyclists on pavements are a hazard to pedestrians. And it doesn't really matter since the argument was lost some time ago. More and more cyclists are mounting the pavement 'for their own safety' or as a protest against the wrong type of cycle lanes and cars parked inconveniently.

We should just accept that cyclists will ride on pavements and jump traffic lights and there is nothing we can do about it.

Is that helpful enough for you Stuart?

[Eagle]

Michael

This is accepting anarchy.

Just because people break the law we should not ignore them. Tell that to the old lady run over.

[stuart]

Well I guess we are not going to convince Stuart that cyclists on pavements are a hazard to pedestrians. And it doesn't really matter since the argument was lost some time ago.

You mean you accept the hazard to pedestrian on pavements from cyclists is very low and more than a magnitude less than from motor vehicles? I agree, that arguement is well settled.

More and more cyclists are mounting the pavement 'for their own safety' or as a protest against the wrong type of cycle lanes and cars parked inconveniently.

Do you have a source?

We should just accept that cyclists will ride on pavements and jump traffic lights and there is nothing we can do about it.

Absolutely not. I thought we were agreed on anti-social cycling being enforced and conflict between street users reduced - so why make this silly statement? You should be truly ashamed of it. It is cheap and untruthful politicking.

Both these offences are, in fact, prosecuted aggressively. In Westminster & the City more aggressively than on motor vehicles committing the same offence. Also TfL research shows that motorists break the red light law more than cyclists and with less justification. Now that must come as a surprise to you.

Remember when cyclists do it - it is a nuisance, when motor vehicles do it - it is lethal. I do wonder where your priorities are on this.

Stuart

[Sydenham]

My experience is of Copenhagen, where cyclists and pedestrians share the pavement in many cases. There is an understanding and expectation that both will be around at the same time on the same piece of earth and people's behaviours adapt accordingly.

Maybe because so many pedestrians are also cyclists it seems to work OK; and they only seem to get irritated with foreigners (like myself) who often forgot that cyclists could be on pavements.

Perhaps its like wearing seat belts or crash helmets here in the UK - at one time it was not the natural thing to do but now it is second nature.

James.

[michael]

TfL research shows that motorists break the red light law more than cyclists and with less justification. Now that must come as a surprise to you.

It does. Do you have a link to this report?

I don't have a source for:

More and more cyclists are mounting the pavement

But I see it happening almost every day, this wasn't the case a few years ago. I'm sorry that this doesn't count as evidence.

Let me be clear that it is my opinion that cyclists on the pavements are a hazard to pedestrians. Although cars cause substantially more deaths and injuries to pedestrians on the pavement (I don't have stats), bikes are a more common hazard and are often hard to notice until they are right in front of you. A low rate of injuries is not a good enough reason to suggest it is not a legitimate issue.

I know there are more important issues with road safety, but I don't think there would be any disagreement between us on drunk driving, cars jumping red lights, or the range of other dangerous behaviours exhibited by a minority of drivers. None of my arguments should take away from making sure cars, lorries, buses, and trains are as safe as possible and driven responsibly. I would just like a bit of this to apply to cyclists - I honestly don't understand why that should be such a problem for you.

[stuart]

TfL research shows that motorists break the red light law more than cyclists and with less justification. Now that must come as a surprise to you.

It does. Do you have a link to this report?

I am going to be naughty and not give you the direct link to the definitive TfL research on cyclist's RLJing. Instead a link to a comment that in turn links to it. If you think I am being unreasonable then you are going to have a real problem with this author.

http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2 ... -ride.html

But I thought the picture at the top has a pertinent image. It shows one of the 16% who jump. Unusually - a lady. Note she appears to have done it quite deliberately and placed herself in a 'safe' position where she can be clearly seen by the vehicles behind. This enables her to get a head start on the lethal grid start when the lights change so she is not crushed against another infamous metal fence. She has kept thoughtfully clear of pedestrians crossing.

To do otherwise would, in this position be unsafe and reckless. She should not have to break the law but it is, I would contend, in this case sensible so to do. Is the solution to ticket her or put in an ASL which if it was enforced (but never is) give her similar protection?

Remember 13 cyclists have been killed in London this year, the majority women and many
on this type of junction but didn't get themselves clear and were crushed.

Anyway when you get to the report make sure you read 1.2. Hopefully that may be a mind changer. I will have to do a bit more digging to find the source that sought to compare these results with that for motor vehicles.

As for your 'rising numbers' - it might so be - but then it might not. A big lesson this report shows is that anecdotal assumptions on this type of abuse are often wildly wrong. Again someone else asked members of the (non-cycling) public "how many cyclists RLJed". I think you can guess the answer to that one ... i can't remember the exact result but it was well north of 50%

Stuart

[Voyageur]

Never the twain shall meet it appears. No problem. Thankfully the law sees this sensibly.

As for the pavements being too narrow in many parts of London to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists (unless cyclists do the safe thing and dismount when pedestrians are present) then that it not received opinion it is plain and simple fact, and no amount of patronising is going to change that.

Again, let's agree to differ. Your protestations and arguments haven't changed my opinion one iota. Happy cycling Stuart (genuinely), just don't bear down on me on a crowded pavement or I am afraid you will get short shrift.

[Tim Lund]

It's amazing how much heat this one provokes. I think it's partly the 'man bites dog' syndrome - a pedestrian hurt by a cyclist is sufficiently rare to be newsworthy, in the same way that deaths in trains - or planes - are news when thousands are still killed each year by cars. I think it's also anthropological - cyclists seem a little bit alien, dressed differently, either young in a hoodie, perhaps, or middle-aged in lycra when perhaps they should know better



I suspect there's some kind of understandable resentment from car drivers about another class of road user who can get away with breaking the rules, which doesn't seem fair, even when it does no real harm - like turning left on a red light - or is positively safer - like cycling respectfully on pavements when roads are too busy, or poorly maintained. I wonder also if there's some resentment, among urban car-drivers, when cyclists pass them either side, at the thought that this other tribe is not only getting places sooner, at less cost, more healthily, and worst of all, probably feeling very smug and superior about it

[Voyageur]

I do think that the small number of poor cyclists give cyclists generally a bad name, but sadly the ones that jump red lights - especially at pedestrian crossings often causing pedestrians legitimately crossing the road to have to move out of their way sharpish - and the ones that increasingly cycle aggressively on pavements expecting people to scatter are the ones that stick in people's minds.

[stuart]

Your protestations and arguments haven't changed my opinion one iota. Happy cycling Stuart (genuinely), just don't bear down on me on a crowded pavement or I am afraid you will get short shrift.

I am sorry to read that. I'm afraid you have completely misunderstood where I'm coming from. I was, with the same self-interest as you concerned primarily with the safety and well being of the pedestrian. We want the same thing. I offered no protestations or arguments but independent facts as can be best found. I merely suggested that your view of the real dangers was distorted and stuff you genuinely believe might not be quite as you imagine. Forgive if I see you ignoring evidence rather than producing better.

I like to flatter myself that my opinion will be led by evidence and will change with it. Do you differ on that? Do you really think the possibility of me bearing down on you (or anyone else) on a bicycle is any greater than you doing the same to me? Really?

The difference is not about pedestrians, safety and pavements. But something much deeper. Should we follow instinct or the data? You know which one I do. Do I know which one you do?

Stuart

[Voyageur]

Oh dear me Stuart .... I am not talking about stats (although clearly you got the ones you raised initially wrong).

I am talking about my experiences on the pavements of London as a pedestrian, and no amount of your protestations that there are greater dangers out there (of course there are) will change my view, sorry old chap.

Once more - and this is getting a bit tiresome - I will say that we will have to agree to differ. Can you deal with that?

[stuart]

Once more - and this is getting a bit tiresome - I will say that we will have to agree to differ. Can you deal with that?

I can deal with anything but being called old. So next time you are out on the street be afraid, very afraid ...

Stuart

[michael]

TfL research shows that motorists break the red light law more than cyclists and with less justification. Now that must come as a surprise to you.

Is this the report?
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... lights.pdf

It does not mention the number of cars jumping red lights, but the average it calculates for cyclists jumping red lights is about 15%. In some places the rate was zero and in other places it was over 30%. I would be stunned if you can produce figures to show that 15% of cars jump red lights and I will need to adjust my understanding of reality if you can point to any junctions where that figure ever goes above 30% except when there is a major failure of the traffic system.

I don't actually think these major junctions of red routes are good examples of cyclists jumping red lights. My experience is that cyclists are much more likely to jump the lights at smaller junctions, but then I don't really think of 'jumping the lights' as moving forward without crossing the traffic or the pedestrian crossing.

But I'm missing the bit that says 'motorists break the red light law more than cyclists'. Can you point me more directly to that statistic from TfL?
I guess it might be possible that because there are more cars on the roads than bikes (more than 15 to 1), so it would only take 1% of cars to jump red to make the same absolute number as bikes. That is probably about right given that there are a small number of drivers who like to zoom through red lights just after they stop being amber. This is of course wrong and dangerous. But I have a feeling that the figures will show that while 15% of cyclist jump red lights on certain junctions, the percentage of car drivers is well below that figure. I look forward to seeing the proper statistics.

But I can accept that there are times when cyclists can jump red lights if they are careful, particular when there is absolutely nothing else on the road (I would not accept this behaviour from motorists). I have much more of a problem with pavement cyclists. Pavements are for pedestrians, and cyclists using pavements present a hazard. When I hear a bicycle behind me I should not have to look round to check if they are on the road or are expecting me to move out of their way to let them past on the pavement.

[stuart]

Michael,

That was the link I gave you for cyclist infringements and I said I would add the motorists figures later when I had chance to retrieve them.

You accuse me of not seeing close encounters on the pavement. I'm surprised you don't see the common occupation of the ASL (RLJing) by cars which is a real headache for cyclists trying to ride legally and is not prosecuted in London. Why?

Anyway apologies if my response is not speedy. Packing tonight for a long trip to West Wales ... by train & bus before you ask.

Stuart

[digime2007]

I'm in agreement with michael. Cycling on pavements is wrong. Cycling the wrong way down one way roads is wrong. Cycling through red lights is wrong. All of these endanger or inconvenience pedestrians. I see this daily and would have been injured on many an occasion if I hadn't been sufficiently alert or nimble enough to get out of the way.

I'm not unsympathetic to the risks to cyclists but you're never going to change the fact that cycling is dangerous. I used to be a keen cyclist but there is no way you'd catch me on a bike in London. I've weighed up the risks and come down firmly against it. If you make a different judgement then good luck to you but you can't expect to pick and choose the rules you follow. Unpredictable road behaviour isn't the answer.

I also think that provocative cyclist behaviour ends up undermining the cause as public sympathy is lost and safety arguments are undermined.

[Dorian]

I'm in agreement with michael. Cycling on pavements is wrong. Cycling the wrong way down one way roads is wrong. Cycling through red lights is wrong. All of these endanger or inconvenience pedestrians. I see this daily and would have been injured on many an occasion if I hadn't been sufficiently alert or nimble enough to get out of the way.

I agree entirely. Holland is no example to compare with as cycling is an integral part of the culture, young and old and the whole traffic sytem is designed around cyclist. They have two way cycle paths, bikes take prioity over cars in towns and in the old areas such as Amsterdam there are no defined roads or pavemets and pedestrians and cyclist work in harmony as it has been this way for 100 years. I have seen many times cyclist around London Bridge, jumping lights, riding on pavements etc and quite often at inappropriate speeds !

I also really dont understand why middle aged blokes are so keen to dress up in bright lycra shorts and tops put half a melon on their heads and race around in large groups blocking the roads up and making narrow country roads impassable. When my daughter was 6 she was knocked over by one of these idiots whilst we were on a family walk, he was talking to one of his co riders whilst on a pavement in Hartfield, going too fast and not paying attention. Could have happend with a car I accept, but not on a pavement.

[stuart]

Michael,

The RAC found that 30% of motorists flouted the traffic light laws:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm

Directline found that 94% break the speed laws:
http://www.directline.com/about_us/news_050805.htm

Both are not sound or comparable statistical studies. In particular the RAC study excludes a major group of offences (stopping past the stop line).

But I think it underlines the proposition that the majority of road offences in both absolute terms, proportionate terms and danger terms is with the elephant in the room. If road safety is a priority in protecting pedestrians then it should make you think how we target enforcement.

Stuart