Cyclists on pavements, do police really care?

Rroff · 6 Jul 2015 at 14:55

neil_g said:
you'd need eyes in the back of your head to see morons like that.

Its kind of my point - doing those speeds (2-3x the other cyclists) in a built up area like that with busy traffic, junctions, etc. without the ability to look around so easily like in a car is asking a bit much of other road users IMO - not saying don't do it but I think there is some onus on the part of the cyclist to realise they are taking chances as well.

tom_e said:
Ummm people on motorbikes manage just fine and you still get idiots doing exactly the same thing if they think they can squeeze into the gap next to you.

I've not seen a motorbike without a pair of rearview mirrors in a long time.

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 14:57

Jono said:
Is this aimed at the video above? If so - Sorry, but what?!

indeed.

cyclist - maintaining speed and direction, not swerving. not in the cycle lane but as mentioned above not compulsory.

van - speeding (possibly), undertaking the car in lane 2, not giving the cyclist as much room as a car (see HWC), cutting the cyclist up.

tom_e · 6 Jul 2015 at 14:57

Rroff said:
Its kind of my point - doing those speeds (2-3x the other cyclists) in a built up area like that with busy traffic, junctions, etc. without the ability to look around so easily like in a car is asking a bit much of other road users IMO - not saying don't do it but I think there is some onus on the part of the cyclist to realise they are taking chances as well.

But in this case it had absolutely nothing to do with his speed it was just the other driver being a ****, like I said bikers can manage it and we have just as much visibility as a cyclist pretty much.

Rroff said:
I've not seen a motorbike without a pair of rearview mirrors in a long time.

I don't ride with any and they're not a legal requirement, shoulder checks and lifesavers when changing direction are pretty much just as good if not better than trying to get a decent view of behind in a pair of mirrors vibrating away.

Rroff · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:02

neil_g said:
indeed.

cyclist - maintaining speed and direction, not swerving. not in the cycle lane but as mentioned above not compulsory.

van - speeding (possibly), undertaking the car in lane 2, not giving the cyclist as much room as a car (see HWC), cutting the cyclist up.

Not saying the van driver was in any way in the right (infact at the end of the video you can see him driving very badly in the distance) but its obvious from the traffic conditions and the road setup that the cycle lane wasn't there just for fun.

Amp34 · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:03

lsg1r said:
Usually out this way the cyclists use the road even after having a cycle path built for them wider than the actual road.... cops aren't bothered about this either

Probably because the cycle path is full of glass, rubbish and pedestrians, making it more dangerous than the road for those cycling fast. If it's anything like some of the paths in my old town you have to stop at every side road as well, which you don't if you're on the road.

Spacedeck · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:04

neil_g said:
maybe because use of cycle paths is not compulsory?

Then maybe it needs changing a little? Where there is a cycle route to take, you should use it. For the safety of yourself and others around you.

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:07

Rroff said:
Not saying the van driver was in any way in the right but its obvious from the traffic conditions and the road setup that the cycle lane wasn't there just for fun.

no its there for optional use.

if the cyclist has the ability to ride up to the speed limit then i fail to see how they should be treated any differently to a motor cycle or another car.

it would be more dangerous for the faster cyclist to swerve around slower moving cyclist. the van driver should have moved into lane 2 to overtake anyway according to the HWC.

the van driver is clearly a muppet. the cyclist has done nothing wrong.

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:08

Spacedeck said:
Then maybe it needs changing a little? Where there is a cycle route to take, you should use it. For the safety of yourself and others around you.

cycle lanes/paths are often pretty dangerous in themselves.

sunken drains/gutters, water when drains get clogged, obstructions such as lamp posts or signage on paths, pedestrians/kids/dogs not within the pedestrian lane, pporly thought out junctions etc etc etc.

arknor · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:10

£30 fine for pavement cycling or upto 500 if they prosecute

most cycling paths on pavements are only marked by a round blue sign up a lamp post, not all of them have a white dividing line on the pavement.

I've been told off before by members of the public then pointed to a sign and they were "er oh what have I done" morons

Telling cyclists to stick to cycle paths is like telling motorists to stick to the motorways because roads are for horses and carts

cycle paths are for kids and people who don't feel comfortable on the road they are to encourage more people to take up cycling they are not mandatory

Amp34 · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:11

Spacedeck said:
Then maybe it needs changing a little? Where there is a cycle route to take, you should use it. For the safety of yourself and others around you.

What happens if you want to do 25-30 in a 30mph zone?

Cycle paths are great for cautious/slow/young cyclists but not for confident fast ones.

Hotwired · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:12

Rroff said:
Not saying the van driver was in any way in the right (infact at the end of the video you can see him driving very badly in the distance) but its obvious from the traffic conditions and the road setup that the cycle lane wasn't there just for fun.

Cyclist was obviously intending to overtake the slower cyclist in the cycle lane from his speed and positioning and was using the outer lane to do so.

So the cyclist isn't in the wrong. You don't have any point.

BuffetSlayer · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:13

Not enough "Ermahgerd!! Dem muslim immigrant cyclists are using our roads without tax and insurance and living in a £1m house on benefits herp derp derp" posts for my liking.

GD, I am much disappoint

Rroff · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:15

neil_g said:
no its there for optional use.

if the cyclist has the ability to ride up to the speed limit then i fail to see how they should be treated any differently to a motor cycle or another car.

it would be more dangerous for the faster cyclist to swerve around slower moving cyclist. the van driver should have moved into lane 2 to overtake anyway according to the HWC.

the van driver is clearly a muppet. the cyclist has done nothing wrong.

I think you are misunderstanding my viewpoint a little - I'm not saying he should have been using the cycle lane but taking the various factors into account its obviously there for a reason. He is however cycling in an advanced manner on a non-trivial bit of road - traffic conditions, layout, etc. and IMO should take on board that not all other road users will have the same level of ability especially combined with the reduced awareness of what is going on behind him (when he isn't keeping up with the other traffic flow) - even taking muppets like the van driver out of the equation. I don't think it unreasonable for a bit of responsibility to go both ways.

I don't really expect many cyclists to see my viewpoint mind,

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:17

neil_g said:
cycle lanes/paths are often pretty dangerous in themselves.

sunken drains/gutters, water when drains get clogged, obstructions such as lamp posts or signage on paths, pedestrians/kids/dogs not within the pedestrian lane, pporly thought out junctions etc etc etc.

as much as i hate to quote myself, some good examples of the above..

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2009/nov/05/readers-worst-cycle-lanes
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/22-london-cycle-lanes-that-hate-cyclists#.gkXlrYXxEJ
http://www.anorak.co.uk/375360/spor...hotos-of-that-olympics-legacy-in-action.html/

councils appear to like smoking crack when designing cycle infrastructure.

want cyclists off the roads/paths then better, well thought out infrastructure is needed.

ikillbears · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:20

maccapacca said:
This guy should be responsible for all cycle policy

whats this ? looks rather amusing

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:20

Rroff said:
I don't really expect many cyclists to see my viewpoint mind,

for what its worth i ride a mountain bike and where possible avoid roads at all costs because too many drivers dont care or dont know how to negotiate cyclists. ive been wiped out by cars several times though no fault of my own (taxi on the wrong side of the road or wing mirror to the handlebar for example).

neil_g · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:21

ikillbears said:
whats this ? looks rather amusing

ironically owner of a (previously until this story came up) popular cyclists cafe cuts up a cyclist, cyclists makes gesture, owner of said cafe gets out and hurls abuse.

if i remember rightly.

tom_e · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:22

ikillbears said:
whats this ? looks rather amusing

It's a video of some complete mentalist totally losing his mind at a cyclist because he basically dared to be on the same bit of road as him.

arknor · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:23

I think you are misunderstanding my viewpoint a little - I'm not saying he should have been using the cycle lane but taking the various factors into account its obviously there for a reason.

In newcastle they created the cycling lane of death where cyclists are encouraged to share a lane with vehicles over 7.5tons, buses and taxis

Is the reason for this because so many cyclists die to lorries over 7.5tons in london? are they trying to assassinate us but make it look like an accident?
That bramble van looks like one that parks on my street :O

BuffetSlayer · 6 Jul 2015 at 15:23