What to do about aggressive cyclists

[Guest]

Watching the bikes come down the Tardebigge Flight today its pretty obvious some see it as their own personal mountain bike space where they can go as fast as they like.

 

They also clearly dont like being called out as a 'prick' for going too fast.

[Hudds Lad]

Gonna get some of these on my push iron, that’ll sort out the pedestrian problem  

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

8 minutes ago, Hudds Lad said:

Gonna get some of these on my push iron, that’ll sort out the pedestrian problem  

 

Ha, you beat me to it.

I was Googling Ben Hur but me Signal was rubbish 

[Ianws]

15 minutes ago, M_JG said:

Watching the bikes come down the Tardebigge Flight today its pretty obvious some see it as their own personal mountain bike space where they can go as fast as they like.

 

They also clearly dont like being called out as a 'prick' for going too fast.

When they do the same on some of the towpath access tracks they become eroded and very muddy. Same on many footpaths.

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Mike Hurley said:

 

This is what it is like.

 

Nobody's saying that it's *always* the truck drivers fault, any more than it's *always* the cyclists fault -- there are stupid undertaking cyclists, and there are truck drivers who don't look/see and kill them.

 

But it's hardly a level playing field, is it? In a contest between a bike and a 44t artic there's only ever going to be one loser... 😞

[TheBiscuits]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

In a contest between a bike and a 44t artic there's only ever going to be one loser... 😞

 

Round two: "Pick up your chosen form of transport with one hand."

[Guest]

As things stand under the recent amendments to the Highway Code the bigger onus is on a truck driver to avoid a collision with a cyclist.

 

So it is more likely regardless of actual 'fault' it will be the truck driver that takes the blame.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Round two: "Pick up your chosen form of transport with one hand."

The point is that with great power comes great responsibility...

 

If you're driving a truck, you need to take extreme care not to squash cars or bikes or pedestrians. 

 

If you're driving a car, you need to take great care not to squash bikes or pedestrians. 

 

If you're riding a bike, you need to take care not to squash pedestrians. 

 

If you're a pedestrian, you need to get off your sodding phone and be aware of the world around you, because you're the most vulnerable to being squashed...

 

(and everyone else needs to be aware that some pedestrians may be old, deaf, blind, disabled or drunk, and make allowances for this because they're still squishy...)

Edited April 18, 2023 by IanD

[LadyG]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

(and everyone else needs to be aware that some pedestrians may be old, deaf, blind, disabled or drunk, and make allowances for this because they're still squishy...)

Not everyone who appears drunk is, similar symptoms with other things, diabetes I think.

[Arthur Marshall]

If we simply adopted and adapted the Dutch law, which I believe says that in any accident between a car and a cyclist the fault always lies with the car driver (as here, any shunt is the fault of the car behind), so that in any accident with a pedestrian the fault is always with the cyclist - a kind of hierarchy of blame - the problem could be solved overnight.

The new Highway Code rules are a move in that direction and it should only take fifty years before the courts catch up.

[Momac]

 

It seems to me the aggression can be from pedestrians deliberately blocking cyclists .

As a pedestrian I generally step aside to allow cyclists to pass , where necessary. Assuming I have seen the cyclist coming. Usually get  a thank you. No conflict required.

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, MartynG said:

 

It seems to me the aggression can be from pedestrians deliberately blocking cyclists .

As a pedestrian I generally step aside to allow cyclists to pass , where necessary. Assuming I have seen the cyclist coming. Usually get  a thank you. No conflict required.

 

Same here as a cyclist -- if you're nice to people, they're usually nice back.

 

In spite of this I've occasionally been deliberately -- as opposed to accidentally -- obstructed by pedestrians on the towpath, sometimes leading to strong words being used.

 

And I'm pretty sure from what they said that they were boaters, not members of the general public... 😞

[magnetman]

A boater is a member of the public. They just happen to have a boat. 

 

I wouldn't deliberately block cyclists. That is not appropriate to anyone having a pleasant time but neither would I alter my walking to allow them to reduce their journey time. They can pass when it is safe rather than assuming a priority. 

 

If everyone did give way to cyclists the logical outcome is higher average speeds on towpaths uploaded to servers. Over time towpaths will become viewed as high speed transport routes without impediments to a smooth flow of traffic and very little physical danger. This is when towpaths become bike only and too dangerous for pedestrians. 

 

I had one idiot shouting at me "rules of the road, get over to the left" this was on the regents canal where obviously there is a high density of zombie idiotism around. 

(towpath)

[Tony Brooks]

12 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I had one idiot shouting at me "rules of the road, get over to the left" this was on the regents canal where obviously there is a high density of zombie idiotism around. 

 

Likewise on the K&A towpath near Reading that is signed by Sustran as a cycle route. Teenager riding at high speed shouting at me to get out of his way (I use a walking stick and am very unsteady on rough ground). When I suggested that he might slow down, the reply was that he had priority because it is a cycle route. I have also been hit there, so will no longer walk that length of towpath at weekends and at going to work and going home times. It is too dangerous, the idiot cyclists have won that bit of towpath.

[magnetman]

Sadly it is indeed best to avoid and let the cyclists win. 

 

I'm sure you are not alone in avoiding the place. 

 

It probably is an unsolvable problem because as mentioned it would be more or less impossible to control bikes anyway. There is such a powerful drive towards use of bikes for transport and Sustrans seem to be sponsoring towpaths so at the end of the day the wheels will take over. 

 

It seems wrong for this to happen but inevitable I guess. 

 

 

[peterboat]

9 hours ago, IanD said:

The point is that with great power comes great responsibility...

 

If you're driving a truck, you need to take extreme care not to squash cars or bikes or pedestrians. 

 

If you're driving a car, you need to take great care not to squash bikes or pedestrians. 

 

If you're riding a bike, you need to take care not to squash pedestrians. 

 

If you're a pedestrian, you need to get off your sodding phone and be aware of the world around you, because you're the most vulnerable to being squashed...

 

(and everyone else needs to be aware that some pedestrians may be old, deaf, blind, disabled or drunk, and make allowances for this because they're still squishy...)

Have you ever driven an articulated lorry on a busy road Ian? I years ago crushed a taxi in London, I was turning left into a police station, the maneuver involves indicating left but moving out  to the right, a London taxi decided this would be the ideal time to undertake! my cab had already turned to the left so the taxi was invisible in the mirror, i crushed the taxi against the substantial gatepost! because it was a tri axle lorry and tri axle trailer they shudder on tight turns and I didnt realise it was because of the taxi, all this was caught on camera fortunately and the taxi driver was charged with driving without due care and attention to other road users. The taxi driver was extremely lucky to be alive as the taxi was under 4 foot wide after the incident it was a black cab

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

as here, any shunt is the fault of the car behind)

 

No longer correct. Most often it is the fault of the car behind, but it is not now automatically assumed to be.

 

The 'guidance' has been amended following a spate of accidents caused by 'Eastern Europeans' where (for example) at a junction they will reverse backwards into the car behind, or, another 'one' is at a junction, they flash their lights to waiting traffic to tell them you are turning and they can proceed and then going straight on and T-boning them.

 

All using 'old cars' and then pointing out to the ones that have been hit, that it was their fault and if they want to pay up for the damage they'll not involve the insurers.

Edited April 19, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No longer correct. Most often it is the fault of the car behind, but it is not now automatically assumed to be.

 

The 'guidance' has been amended following a spate of accidents caused by 'Eastern Europeans' where (for example) at a junction they will reverse backwards into the car behind, or, another 'one' is at a junction, they flash their lights to waiting traffic to tell them you are turning and they can proceed and then going straight on and T-boning them.

 

All using 'old cars' and then pointing out to the ones that have been hit, that it was their fault and if they want to pay up for the damage they'll not involve the insurers.

 

Yes this happened to my friend a number of yars ago. We were going along in his Range Rover (old one) and a "taxi" with 2 passengers stopped dead in front with no brake lights. 30mph road and a damp day. Whack. 

 

It wasn't an "eastern european" I would say Pakistani or Bengali. Anyway no doubt they claimed on the insurance. The 'taxi' was a petrol mercedes 200 series which was rather odd. Normally it would be a diesel. Definitely an arranged accident. The driver gave the game away slightly as he was beaming with pleasure. Unfortunately neither of us had phones with us and the vehicle, although smashed up at the back, departed after exchanging details. 

 

A well organised scam. 

 

I hit my knee didn't think anything of it and now about 20 yars later I get knee problems. 

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

Amateur psychology, disgusted from Tunbridge Wells, nuttiness from London and a bit of casual racism from the back of beyond. Got to love CWDF.

 

Anyway, yesterday lunchtime I stepped off to tie my boat to a bollard above Hillmorton top lock when a cyclist came past at normal speed having had to take to the grass verge to avoid me. I then reflected that I had heard a single ring of a bell moments before. The problem here being that as I was fully focussed on controlling a boat on the end of a line I simply wasn't concentrating on any ambient noises.

 

The point being that it isn't simply a case of sound a warning and carry on, the cyclist must be ready to avoid collision in the event the 'pedestrian' (which is not really what I was) does not respond. Around operational infrastructure, and especially busy ones such as Hillmorton locks, there is a lot of logic that cyclists should be encouraged to dismount.

 

I also think that suggesting how pedestrians have to act i.e. not to look at their phones and not wear headphones is tantamount to victim blaming.

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Captain Pegg

[IanD]

33 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Have you ever driven an articulated lorry on a busy road Ian? I years ago crushed a taxi in London, I was turning left into a police station, the maneuver involves indicating left but moving out  to the right, a London taxi decided this would be the ideal time to undertake! my cab had already turned to the left so the taxi was invisible in the mirror, i crushed the taxi against the substantial gatepost! because it was a tri axle lorry and tri axle trailer they shudder on tight turns and I didnt realise it was because of the taxi, all this was caught on camera fortunately and the taxi driver was charged with driving without due care and attention to other road users. The taxi driver was extremely lucky to be alive as the taxi was under 4 foot wide after the incident it was a black cab

<sigh> I never said it was *always* the fault of the truck, in fact I said precisely the opposite a few posts back, but in your eagerness to argue your point you seem to have ignored that... 😞

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Amateur psychology, disgusted from Tunbridge Wells, nuttiness from London and a bit of casual racism from the back of beyond. Got to love CWDF.

 

Anyway, yesterday lunchtime I stepped off to tie my boat to a bollard above Hillmorton top lock when a cyclist came past at normal speed having had to take to the grass verge to avoid me. I then reflected that I had heard a single ring of a bell moments before. The problem here being that as I was fully focussed on controlling a boat on the end of a line I simply wasn't concentrating any ambient noises.

 

The point being that it isn't simply a case of sound a warning and carry on, the cyclist must be ready to avoid collision in the event the 'pedestrian' (which is not really what I was) does not respond. Around operational infrastructure, and especially busy ones such as Hillmorton locks, there is a lot of logic that cyclists should be encouraged to dismount.

 

I also think that suggesting how pedestrians have to act i.e. not to look at their phones and not wear headphones is tantamount to victim blaming.

 

It's not victim blaming, it's pointing out that being completely unaware of what is going on around you means you're more likely to be involved in an accident. Given the number of documented/filmed cases where this has happened -- people walking out in front of cars, into canals, falling down steps, walking into lampposts -- I hardly think this is controversial... 😉

 

I also think the "some cyclists are stupid and dangerous, ban/licence all of them" idea is simple prejudice. Do we ban all cars because some drivers are idiots? Do we close all pubs (or ban alcohol?) because some idiots get drunk and start fights in them? Do we ban all wideboats because some of them moor in stupid places? Do we ban all CCers because some of them break all the rules and CM/towpath squat?

 

No, because the majority of people don't behave like idiots and abuse things, they behave responsibly, and it's unfair to ban them from doing something useful/enjoyable because of the antics of the idiot minority.

 

Of course if a way can be found to crack down on the idiots without badly affecting the non-idiots this should be done, but in some cases there's no easy way to do this and we just have to accept that there will always be some idiots in all walks of life... 😞

[Arthur Marshall]

Cyclists ended up normalising pavement riding, and the result of this was that cycling on the roads became more dangerous as drivers got out of the habit of being used to slowing for cyclists, and resented having to. The same is now happening between pedestrians and cyclists both on pavements and towpaths as walking on what is technically a pedestrian way becomes more dangerous, especially with electric bikes and scooters.

There's no answer to it, it's just the nature of progress. Anyone with enough money to buy a fast bike (however powered) assumes they are prioritised above those who only have shoes. Every technical improvement makes things worse.

[Guest]

I can highly recommend folk getting a dash cam.

 

Only yesterday I overtook a stationary HGV on the A449 who had pulled over to the left. Just as I was about to pass he suddenly started a right turn across the front of me.

 

Some heavy braking and some fruity language ensued but I just managed to avoid driving into him.

 

His excuse was that I should have seen his signal which caused me to question whether he was signalling or not, even though I was fairly sure he wasnt.

 

A later review of the captured footage showed no such signal was made. Had I run into him this would have been invaluable.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by M_JG

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, IanD said:

Nobody's saying that it's *always* the truck drivers fault, any more than it's *always* the cyclists fault -- there are stupid undertaking cyclists, and there are truck drivers who don't look/see and kill them.

 

But it's hardly a level playing field, is it? In a contest between a bike and a 44t artic there's only ever going to be one loser... 😞

If they didn't undertake there would be less chance of drivers who can't see them killing them.  I cycle but I wouldn't dream of going up the inside of a large vehicle, cars maybe, you can see the driver and what they are doing.

[IanD]

Just now, Arthur Marshall said:

Cyclists ended up normalising pavement riding, and the result of this was that cycling on the roads became more dangerous as drivers got out of the habit of being used to slowing for cyclists, and resented having to. The same is now happening between pedestrians and cyclists both on pavements and towpaths as walking on what is technically a pedestrian way becomes more dangerous, especially with electric bikes and scooters.

There's no answer to it, it's just the nature of progress. Anyone with enough money to buy a fast bike (however powered) assumes they are prioritised above those who only have shoes. Every technical improvement makes things worse.

Some cyclists (not me!) ride on the pavements and this shouldn't be happening, but as you say given the risks of cycling on the road and the attitudes of some drivers it isn't surprising that some do this. I'm not excusing it, just saying that it's understandable.

 

E-bikes and scooters travel at speeds more like traffic than bikes (or pedestrians), and should certainly not be using footpaths where they mix with pedestrians, they should definitely be on the roads (like bikes should be). On the other hand used properly -- which many aren't! -- they offer a quick convenient and eco-friendly way for non-sweaty-fitness-freaks to travel a few miles. They should be legalised for road use -- and possibly licensed? -- with enforcement/fines for riding on pavements. At the moment since e-scooters are effectively banned people ride them anywhere because the penalty for riding on the pavement and road are the same.

 

You say every technical improvement makes things worse -- is it really such a bad thing that anyone (who maybe isn't fit enough to ride a bike) can use these to get around without having to wait for a bus or drive?

[Lady M]

In the canal environment, how about having cyclists adopt the 4 mph maximum speed that boats and towpath users follow/adopt?  I also think that cycling should be banned alongside signed visitor/permanent moorings and especially adjacent to locks, where boaters and gongoozlers alike will not be thinking about listening for/evading cyclists.  If it is windy, I can need to use the whole width of a towpath for leverage to pull my boat in.