Oi! Cyclists - fuck off off of the pavements.

No. What I’m maintaining is that as greater numbers of cyclists take to the roads in London, so there is a greater overspill of cyclists from unsafe and overcrowded roads onto pavements.

This overcrowding, coupled with an element of less caring cyclists, is leading to a conflict of interests between on the one side, pavement users who find it difficult enough contending with other pedestrians at average walking speed, and cyclists who whizz towards or past at maybe ten or twenty times their walking speed.

No the premise appears to be that

a) some idiot cyclists like to plough their way down pavements

b) Some cyclists state that they only occasionally pootle along the pavement, and make a risk assessment that they're safer there (as well as considering the safety of other pavement users) than when using badly designed highways

c) that there never seems to be a point in this argument that recognises that the people in (a) above are most likely to be twunts whether they're on a bicycle, in a car, on a skateboard, walking a dog on a long lead, joyriding a mobility vehicle or stoking a bloody steam train.

No, the opening poster appears angered at cyclists who though illegally using pavements expect him to get out of their way – you’ll see the emphasis is on cyclists who not only use pavements illegally but also try to bully pedestrians.

Me, I’m angry because as a disabled person I’ve been the target of cyclists riding illegally either on pavements or at crossings – note I refer to those cyclists who in the course of acting illegally hurt me in the process – and am now fearful to go onto crowded pavements.

This thread could have taken a more constructive direction if a few more cyclists, instead of blaming motorists, took the concerns of people like me more seriously with a little compassion; stopped defending ‘our’ actions right or wrong.

If you saw my face as I push myself along in my mobility vehicle at around 0.5 mph joy wouldn’t be the obvious emotion you’d think of.

What utter nonsense. You obviously haven't bothered read the opening post you refer to, here let me remind you exactly what it says; (after "Oi cyclists; fuck off the pavements" of course) -

He pretty much set the tone of the thread, coming back a little later to add his (probably fantasised?) anecdote about threatening violence to a teenager on a bicycle and making him fall off his bike (you ought to remember, you were an enthusiastic contributor in this vein until you - I guess - realised just how little credibility you were garnering)

It's very standard Clarksonian anti-cycling stuff and can be found on every carhead, right-wing forum all over the internet.

And now you want to play the High Moral Ground card.

Cute

I'm sorry to hear about your being intimidated by cyclists in the past, although I really am at a loss to where this mass intimidation is taking place. I don't have a car and am a carer for a 2 year old, I routinely walk or cycle and although I occasionally see a cyclist on a pavement, dangerous or intimidatory driving by them is - ime - very rare, I can't remember the last time I was a victim of it. Just my experience.

That is does not necessarily follow. The more cyclist on the road, the safer roads become for cyclists, if, one of the reasons that cyclists used the pavement is out of fear then that factor would reduce. Obviously, it depends on the proportion, those that use it so skip lights, filter on the left etc would perhaps increase.

UB: Are you being 100% sincere about being forced of the pavements; I only ever occasionally see pavement cyclists, today a kid on an empty pavement of a busy road, last week a tw@t filtering left at the lights. Do you think your fear is rational if you are being sincere?

Co-op, the OP, like lots of pedestrians, is pissed off with intrusive pavement cyclists; and, he’s expressed this in his inimitable way on U75. Yes, he invites cyclists to leave the pavements. He’s obviously not casting his condemnation at all cyclists; only those who use pavements when they shouldn’t – I share his frustrations.

Co-op, you’re a liar. I haven’t advocated the use of violence against teenagers. As for the Clarksonian dig; I’d say some of the cyclists on here identify far more with the Clarksonian way than pedestrians who point out that cyclists who illegally use pavements are in the wrong – you are you know; despite your denials.

I reiterate, the reaction of a lot of cyclists on this forum has been to turn the argument onto the pedestrians and motorists. Again, I’ll state, when I’m knocked over by a car or motorised vehicle whilst on a pavement or crossing at the appropriate time at the correct crossing point, then I’ll condemn cars for illegally driving on pavements.

Mass intimidation? Come on, now you’re just taking the piss out of me.

Cyclists bearing down on me at speeds on crowded pavements are very intimidating; especially when, like me, you’re stuck in a wheelchair that you can’t manoeuvre quickly. Is it odd that I feel this way? As an ambulatory disabled person I was hit 6 times by errant cyclists. Hasn’t it occurred to you the reason I was a victim was because I was too slow to take evasive action?

As I said before co-op, our experiences inform our views.

An upsurge of cyclists on London’s roads is evident. A rise in pavement cyclists is also becoming evident – I’ve noticed the trend in the last 5 or six years. From some of the posts to this thread there is evidence that when some cyclists feel threatened by traffic they resort to using pavements. I see cyclists mounting pavements along the A3 as they approach lights – probably to avoid bunching.

Yes, I’m being sincere. What’s irrational about fearing something that you know there is a potential for. Having been struck and injured six times by cyclists not observing the rules, is it then so fantastical it couldn’t happen again?

It’s not all about having accidents either. 75% of vision impaired people who travel alone find pavement cycling a real problem. When I see a cyclist heading for me at speeds I can only imagine; am I being irrational, or is the cyclist riding at 10 or 12 mph being unreasonable, intimidatory even?

but if you help sort out the roads then the cyclists will leave the pavements . It's not ideal but you and cyclists share a common goal in making the roads safer .

I've written to my MP asking for a national cycle training scheme to be set up funded by fines from cyclists who break the law , I doubt I will get much of a response though because he is a Tory twat .

Cyclists will stop breaking the law but only if pedestrians help them to lobby. A bit like burglars telling me they'll stop burgling my council flat but only if I ask the rich home owners to get rid of their attack dogs.

Problem is Termite Man, you seem to be one of the few on this thread willing to even bother to lobby. No, I get the impression cyclists have an individualistic streak; and, they'll only continue to break the law until deterrent measures are applied.

Cyclists need to be fully licensed; bikes should have a registration system; cyclists carry insurance, the same as motorists; and; compelled to pass proficiency and capability tests. That way I can get some kind of redress the next time I’m hit by a cyclist; just as I can sue a motorist if hit by one.

if you feel unsafe on the pavement because of people who should be on the road, then it's surely the people who shouldn't be on the pavement who are the problem.

Cyclist are more vunerable on the pavement they're going slow so their balance isn't as assured, just push them over and it's problem solved.....

I also think the same for pedestrians, in-fact anyone who wants to leave private property should be required to have a permit from relevant bodies.

If you put lots of restrictions on people cycling they'll give up on it and many will take to driving more often. This will make the roads less safe for everyone.

I'm planning to solve the problem of pavement parking by punching anyone on the street I see doing this. Problem solved!

Not if you follow some of the logic on here. I feel fearful of cyclists whizzing past me and bearing down on me on pavements; but, motorists are to blame. I'm less inclined to travel along busy pavements because of the large volume of illegal cycling; yet, it's up to me to lobby for cyclists to win improved road conditions.

It's interesting; not one cyclist on this thread has suggested a coalition of cyclists and pedestrians to lobby jointly - I've mooted it; but, as of yet nobody has agreed. From this I read that cyclists aren't overly concerned about the issue; they'll continue to break the law and harass and drive people like me off pavements.

Should I now give up any concerns I have for the safety of cyclists and focus on my own issues; or, should I, like a responsible citizen, continue to plod away to effect change, with or without the help of the cycling fraternity.

Phil, you've missed the point. In the context of this thread my concerns are for my safety on pavements; where, I've never been run over by a car.

The difference between your silly idea of licensing pedestrians and my idea of licensing cyclists is that the idea of licensing cyclists is brought up on a regular basis; it's an idea that may have its day.

I'm entirely on the point. Look at the evidence linked to in post #16.

Therefore the biggest risk to pedestrians is themselves. Of course they should be licensed!

I've still to be hit by a car whilst using pavements; however, I've been hit six times by cyclists. This thread isn't about the relationship between pedestrians and motorists; it's supposed to be about cyclists illegally riding on pavements.

So, let's stay with the subject and stop introducing external factors - or as they read to me excuses to carry on breaking the law.

You absolutely love making assumptions don't you?!

You also seem to have this strange delusion that cyclist are never pedestrians, and that they're intrinsically linked to their bicycle pedals at all times.

You raised the 'External factors' - such as registering cyclists, cycle insurance, and cyclist testing. I assume you propose these measures with the aim of making pedestrians safer. I'm just questioning if the solution you propose would be effective.

Surely if you think a database, protection by insurance and training is the way to make things safer then why not apply this to pedestrians themselves?





I recon we could have another 20 pages on this thread happily chatting with each other!

I've asked if any cyclists on this site are involved with lobbying for safer roads and better infrastructure; and so far one person has admitted to writing to their MP. Cyclists on here have suggested that I lobby to get safer conditions for them so as they'll not need to use the pavements (which I find somewhat perverse, as you've probably read); and, I can go back to safely using the pavements again.

When someone makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion and is met with fairly overwhelming silence; what then does he have to go on but assumptions.

I'll ask again - are there cyclists out there who would join with pedestrians and seriously consider joint lobbying?

Yes, I'll go along with that.

At what age would would a pedestrian be allowed to apply for a permit to walk down the pavement then?
Same question for kids on bikes - should they all be banned from riding a bike until licensed, insured and tagged?

I've already mentioned I did some of this with a local pedestrian and cycle group a while back. TBH I cannot be bothered now. Anyway you should get in touch with your local cycle group and I'm sure you'll get some people to work with.

Hardly external to the debate; if cyclists had to undergo the disciplines of registering, insurance and testing they’d be more accountable. As things are if I’m involved in a car accident I may at least be able to identify the vehicle by its registration; through this I may successfully bring the miscreant driver to book; and, even receive compensation. The driver, if proven to be at fault, such as hitting me as I’m wheeling along the pavement, may well be duly punished – fine or license endorsed or even revoked.


If the cyclists who’d hit me were registered there’s a chance I could have dealt with them accordingly; instead of having to come on here and try to get through to those cyclists that break the law that their actions have consequences. Since cyclists are for the most part anonymous they can carry on flouting the law.

With a few exceptions I know I’m wasting my time trying to appeal to people who have little or no consideration of the views and fears of others.

I do, and it's been raised by a number of other posters during this oh so circular thread, have said that they do too, or are members of other organisations who have a campaigning role.

On a personal note, I wouldn't ever consider joining a lobbying group with you. I wouldn't trust you to not start spouting some offensive assumptive comments that would scupper any positive outcome!

Lo! You're doing it again...

How do you know this? From one thread on the internet where you've sworn at people and made decisions on their behalf?

I am insured, my bikes are registered, and I think I passed my cycling proficiency test as it was then, back in a 1979, and I carry photo ID on me about 99% of the time. As has been pointed out, most cyclists are also car drivers, and will to some extent have been tested on the Highway Code.

What do you suggest doing to the high percentage of uninsured, unlicensed drivers?

That’s it Phil put the onus on me. I’m not breaking the law when I travel on pavements. Cyclists who do so outside of designated areas are breaking the law. Yet, as one of the least mobile members of society I’m the one who should be pushing the agenda.

Wonder where I’ll fit it in between lobbying for properly accessible buses; fighting for a tube system I can use; campaigning for National Rail stations I can physically get into; appealing to Councils and the Highways to make their pavements more usable (this is not cycling related); trying to get myself into a home in which I don’t need to crawl on my hands and knees to get around; working with other disabled people to try and stop the demonization of us by the media and government; organising disabled people in Lambeth to fight against the cuts in the care system we know are coming; standing up to Johnson and City Hall’s plans to cut back on public transport and Freedom Pass use; calling for support to stop the incidence of Disability Hate Crime; running a Unite Branch; co-ordinating the UL in my Region; and, searching around for pubs and restaurants with proper facilities for disabled people, so as I might enjoy a social life from time to time.

But Phil, I will look into it.

I certainly have consideration of the fears of others, but I'm more concerned about actual risks. As I've said to you before I think anything that makes it harder for people to get out of their cars and riding their bikes will make the roads less safe for all. This could probably be backed up with numbers looking at how safe pedestrians are where there is a cycling culture - a pedestrian is safer in Holland, Danemark and Germany than in the UK (although a driver is quite safe in the UK).

I would have thought in any the vast majority of accident with a cyclist involving an injury the cyclist will also have suffered an injury and not be able to get away from the accident. Then regardless of insurance you can bring a civil case against them.

If after an accident the cyclist is an arse hole and does not stop to help and give details then just because they are on a database it will not help - they'll fuck off anyway.

Glad you found my suggestion helpful.

I didn't know that; and, as I said the silence on here, with a couple of exceptions, led me to make, in my view a perfectly reasonable, assumption.

Sure, I was intemperate earlier on in the thread; and, I’m mature enough not to expect people to forget that – as I’ve said, actions have consequences; and thus, I expect a rough ride.

As for the ‘not joining a lobbying group with you’, hardly surprises me. So, don’t lobby with me; but don’t use me as an excuse to excuse your from your responsibilities.