What to do about aggressive cyclists

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, blackrose said:

The worst one that happened to me was around Croxley on the GU. I was cycling along when I approached a dog walker with a small dog on a lead, but the woman had no control of it.

 

I slowly cycled past on the wide grassy bit letting them have the towpath when suddenly the dog decided to shoot out right in front of my front wheel. It was a fairly new bike with sharpish brakes which I applied instantly. 

 

I of course flew over the handlebars and had a soft landing on the grass to be greeted by a small dog licking my face. 🤣

A friend of mine had a similar experience which ended up with him coming off and landing in a bank of nettles, while his bike went into the water.

 

The culprit was however a duck flying into his front wheel, so no owner to blame... 🙂

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's neither, it's a towpath -- AFAIK both pedestrians and cyclists use it by permission from CART. You used to need a license to cycle on it, I remember buying one from Little Venice in the early 80s, but that requirement was dropped long ago.

 

Some cyclists (not me!) would say that towpaths are an excellent way for cyclists to get healthy exercise and cycles to get safely (no cars!) from A to B and pedestrians should be banned from them 😉

 

Why is there always this persistent need to ban "what I don't do" and refuse to see that there may be another side to the debate? 😞

 

Fast moving vehicles are not appropriate. It ruins the situation and puts people off coming out with their children. Nobody (well there will be some) wants their children harmed by idiot cyclists so why bother using towpaths? 

 

It is a territory struggle at the end of the day and the cyclists will win. For every idiot cyclist there will be a dozen ordinary people who wanted to come out and enjoy a pleasant walk but didn't because of the hazard of the idiots. 

 

Why let idiots rule the place? It doesn't make sense. 

 

 

There was a really mad bike accident on Limehouse cut a few yars ago. I was moored towpath side. Old dutch Tjalk in front of me with big rudder sticking out. 

 

Cyclist came belting along ding ding ding assuming the pedestrian in front of him would jump put the way. She didn't. He braked, bike went down and he somersaulted into the cut just missing the Tjalk rudder by about a foot. Went right under then found his bearings and got to the egress ladder and climbed out clutching his phone.

 

Mad shit that was. Why do these idiots go so fast? Something wrong with peoples brains I think. 

 

[IanD]

Just now, magnetman said:

 

Fast moving vehicles are not appropriate. It ruins the situation and puts people off coming out with their children. Nobody (well there will be some) wants their children harmed by idiot cyclists so why bother using towpaths? 

 

It is a territory struggle at the end of the day and the cyclists will win. For every idiot cyclist there will be a dozen ordinary people who wanted to come out and enjoy a pleasant walk but didn't because of the hazard of the idiots. 

 

Why let idiots rule the place? It doesn't make sense. 

 

 

Yeah, great idea, let's punish all the considerate cyclists because of a few who ride stupidly.

 

While we're at it, some pedestrians are drunk and incapable, so let's ban them as well.

 

But so are some hire boaters, so let's ban them, that'll make the canals a nicer place.

 

Oh, and stupidly moored wideboaters too -- ban the lot of 'em! And people with scruffy boats, they're an eyesore, get them off the canals!

 

And some single mums abuse the welfare system, so let's heap abuse on all of them and cut back so even the honest struggling ones are living out of food banks.

 

Then some Pakistani Muslims were part of a child abuse ring, so let's vilify the lot of them -- never mind that the majority of such abuse comes from white men, and most Muslims wouldn't *dream* of such a thing.

 

All these could have been taken straight from the Daily Wail playbook, that icon of tolerance where it's always easier to blame an entire group for the sins of a few people -- but hey, it sells papers... 😞

[BilgePump]

You'll always get entitled idiots who think that the world revolves around them and rules don't apply. About five years ago I was pushing my old mountain bike through Woodley tunnel (lower peak forest) with the front light on. Coming in the opposite direction is another cyclist yelling to get out of the way. Yep with a tunnel wall one side and a steel barrier on the canal side of towpath. I just stopped walking and a MAMIL (Middle aged man in lycra) ploughs into me in the darkness. Just behind him is his ladyfriend/wife/other who then proceeds to verbally tear him a new one for being an inconsiderate idiot and not getting off his bike. Think he did a bit of damage to his shiny new expensive two wheeler, just for good measure. All a bit surreal in the middle of a dark tunnel.

[magnetman]

Not at all. I just don't want bikes on footpaths. 

 

Yes I know it isn't a footpath. 

 

 

[Pluto]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Occasionally you get someone who is either so engrossed in their phone that they're unable to notice what's going on around them, or deaf to the world with headphones on -- sometimes even a loud "Hello!" or "Excuse me" fails to get through, I've had to stop and tap them on the shoulder before they notice what's going on. That's just as inconsiderate to polite cyclists as aggressive cyclists are to some pedestrians.

Of course they could simply be deaf, or are deaf people forbidden from using the towpath? Or someone could have severe  arthritis, as I do, which makes moving quickly difficult, especially on a towpath where getting out of balance could end up with you falling in. I have also worked with blind and partially-sighted people discussing access to the towpath. Even fully blind people said they really liked the towpath as the dangers were all fairly easy for them to recognise, apart from speeding cyclists. Tapping a blind person on the shoulder can be dangerous if you do not speak to them before hand and for them to have confirmed that they know what is going on.

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Not at all. I just don't want bikes on footpaths. 

 

Yes I know it isn't a footpath.

 

So you're being selfish then aren't you? 😉

 

Since lockdown I took up cycling again to try and lose some weight and get fitter, cycling about 30 miles a week on the towpath near me -- because there's no way I'm going to do that on the roads round here, they're full of traffic, pollution and danger, I know of more than one person who's been badly injured or killed doing just that. In those two years I've never had a single collision -- or a near-miss -- with a pedestrian, though I've had a couple of near-misses with idiot cyclists like the one in the video...

 

I suppose I could have done all that on the roads, I'm sure my family wouldn't have minded me ending up under the wheels of a truck -- like a friend did -- so long as you were happy... 😞

 

There are limited resources in the world -- including canals and towpaths -- and it would be a damn sight better place if we all tried to share them and be a bit more tolerant towards others instead of pushing for them to be banned, don't you think? 🙂

14 minutes ago, Pluto said:

Of course they could simply be deaf, or are deaf people forbidden from using the towpath? Or someone could have severe  arthritis, as I do, which makes moving quickly difficult, especially on a towpath where getting out of balance could end up with you falling in. I have also worked with blind and partially-sighted people discussing access to the towpath. Even fully blind people said they really liked the towpath as the dangers were all fairly easy for them to recognise, apart from speeding cyclists. Tapping a blind person on the shoulder can be dangerous if you do not speak to them before hand and for them to have confirmed that they know what is going on.

You obviously didn't read the post where I said exactly that, then? 🙂

 

I've encountered both deaf and partially-sighted people on the towpath, but unlike the deaf-headphone-wearers and blind-nose-in-phone-addicts they have no choice about their disabilities, and can't be blamed or expected to be aware of oncoming cyclists -- who should of course take care.

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[magnetman]

No I don't. Fast moving wheeled vehicles on a narrow path shared with pedestrians with water on one side of it is not an appropriate use of the amenity. 

 

There are thousands and thousands of tarmacked roads all over the country where people can cycle and never have pedestrian interaction problems. 

 

The cyclists do a "reclaim the streets" thing so why don't walkers do a "reclaim our paths" thing and just disallow bikes or make it awkward for them? 

 

It is the wrong mentality for people out walking to be getting out of the way of people cycling. If anything it should be the other way around. Everyone has an objective and a destination. Someone on wheels is going to get there faster so it should be them who delay their journey by dismounting to pass walkers rather than walkers getting out the way of the people on wheels. 

 

Its just wrong and doesn't work. 

 

My advice for people walking is do NOT respond to aggression by jumping out the way. This is the wrong psychology to be using. 

 

 

 

 

Jousting and unseating the enemy using the long shaft could be rewarding. 

 

 

"Awfully sorry old boy I seem to have caught you with my boathook". 

[David Mack]

Some cyclists need reminding that just ringing their bell does not entitle them to unimpeded passage!

[Tony Brooks]

To a degree, one answer is in the hands of the organisation that promotes and signs towpaths a cycle routes. There are standards for dual use paths so that organisation should pay to make towpaths conform and if they can't they should de-sign them. They could also employ wardens to monitor the idiot, uncaring and selfish cyclists. They won't though because that costs money and no one is going to give them the money.

[robtheplod]

I'm fairly deaf so i rarely hear bikes behind me, even if they ring their bell... I must be very annoying.

[BilgePump]

Let's say bikes were banned on the towpath. Not going to happen but just say.

Would it stop people? Nah

It's illegal to cycle on the pavement or use a privately owned electric scooter on public roads, but does that stop people? It doesn't stop people who are otherwise law abiding in their life so I doubt whether even those people would be more wary of getting caught by CaRT bods than getting their collar felt by the local constabulary for cycling on the pavement.

As for the sheer selfish idiots who cycle like it's the Tour de France or the criminals who ride nicked motorbikes down the towpath, they aren't going to give a merry fig about any 'ban'

Don't penalise those who enjoy a safe and leisurely cycle on the towpath just because some people are complete ar****les.

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, magnetman said:

No I don't. Fast moving wheeled vehicles on a narrow path shared with pedestrians with water on one side of it is not an appropriate use of the amenity. 

 

There are thousands and thousands of tarmacked roads all over the country where people can cycle and never have pedestrian interaction problems. 

 

The cyclists do a "reclaim the streets" thing so why don't walkers do a "reclaim our paths" thing and just disallow bikes or make it awkward for them? 

 

It is the wrong mentality for people out walking to be getting out of the way of people cycling. If anything it should be the other way around. Everyone has an objective and a destination. Someone on wheels is going to get there faster so it should be them who delay their journey by dismounting to pass walkers rather than walkers getting out the way of the people on wheels. 

 

Its just wrong and doesn't work. 

 

My advice for people walking is do NOT respond to aggression by jumping out the way. This is the wrong psychology to be using. 

 

Jousting and unseating the enemy using the long shaft could be rewarding. 

 

You really do know how to be intolerant, don't you?

 

Yeah, cyclists on roads don't have pedestrian interaction problems. But they do have vehicle interaction problems, which regularly kill them. Over the years I've had several friends badly injured, and one ex-keen-cyclist who is depressed and doesn't cycle any more after a near-death experience. But I suppose this doesn't matter to you, a few dead cyclists just keep the numbers down, it's Darwinism in action?

 

(I could point out that many *many* times more cyclists are killed or injured by cars than pedestrians by cyclists, but presumably that doesn't matter to you)

 

I agree, don't respond to aggressive cyclists by jumping out of the way. But if the path is wide enough for you to step to one side -- or just not walk down the middle! -- to let a cyclist past who has slowed down and warned you of their approach, why not do it -- is it really such a hardship to have any kind of give-and-take in your life instead of digging your heels in and "standing up for your rights" like the Daily Wail loves to see?

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[Lady M]

As a boater/pedestrian, why should I constantly have to step aside?  Especially as CRT say I have priority over you? 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Lady C said:

As a boater/pedestrian, why should I constantly have to step aside?  Especially as CRT say I have priority over you? 

 

Because it's better to be nice to other people instead of vindictive and mean-minded? 😉

 

And because "priority" doesn't mean "sole access" -- if you (for example) stick your elbows out and march down the middle of the towpath and refuse to move out of the way because a cyclist would like to pass (where there's room), you're being an idiot too. Unless you do exactly the same when a runner wants to come past you. How about a pedestrian walking faster than you who wants to "overtake" you? What about a walker coming the other way wearing a rucksack, do you refuse to let them pass you?

 

And please don't assume I'm a mad cyclist, as I said I also walk the towpath -- and I'm happy to let other people, or runners, or cyclists pass me where there's room, because doing anything else is just being bloody-minded...

 

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[BilgePump]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

You really do know how to be intolerant, don't you?

 

Yeah, cyclists on roads don't have pedestrian interaction problems. But they do have vehicle interaction problems, which regularly kill them. Over the years I've had several friends badly injured, and one ex-keen-cyclist who is depressed and doesn't cycle any more after a near-death experience. But I suppose this doesn't matter to you, a few dead cyclists just keep the numbers down, it's Darwinism in action?

 

I agree, don't respond to aggressive cyclists by jumping out of the way. But if the path is wide enough for you to step to one side -- or just not walk down the middle! -- to let a cyclist past who has slowed down and warned you of their approach, why not do it -- is it really such a hardship to have any kind of give-and-take in your life instead of digging your heels in and "standing up for your rights" like the Daily Wail loves to see?

And any considerate cyclist should dismount and walk their bike past people where the width of towpath is narrow

[Bee]

I'm usually a reasonable sort of bloke and I can cope with a few cyclists but after half a dozen go flying past I get a bit tetchy. Thing is that I am nearly always with my dog and if anybody goes whizzing past Lucy without due consideration and risking injury or worse to her just because they can't be bothered to slow down I can do a pretty good impression of the incredible hulk. Grrrrrr.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

And any considerate cyclist should dismount and walk their bike past people where the width of towpath is narrow

Yes. Did I ever say anything different?

7 minutes ago, Bee said:

I'm usually a reasonable sort of bloke and I can cope with a few cyclists but after half a dozen go flying past I get a bit tetchy. Thing is that I am nearly always with my dog and if anybody goes whizzing past Lucy without due consideration and risking injury or worse to her just because they can't be bothered to slow down I can do a pretty good impression of the incredible hulk. Grrrrrr.

And I don't blame you one bit. Stupid cyclists don't deserve being given in to. But not all cyclists are like this...

Edited April 17, 2023 by IanD

[Lady M]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Because it's better to be nice to other people instead of vindictive? 😉

 

 

 

 

Yes, but if it is the pedestrian always being nice to the cyclists, this is a bit unbalanced and unfair.

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, Lady C said:

As a boater/pedestrian, why should I constantly have to step aside?  Especially as CRT say I have priority over you? 

Correct, the overtaker has to avoid the overtaken. I seem to remember having to dismount occasionally when a path is crowded, or there are obstructions, sometimes it's just not possible to continue to cycle, so you stand and wait til the group has passed then continue, but judging from the small sample of cyclists today, I would say that they each have different approaches from behind.

Ringing the bell is a start, but some ring and keep going at exactly the same pace so that helps prevent alarm in the pedestrian but only if the cyclist is going slowly.

 I would approach a pedestrian while slowing down, ring the bell, but then, if you need to stop it is much easier.

To ring the bell and overtake rapidly does not allow the pedestrian to process the event or allow the cyclist to determine whether he has been "recognised".

[BilgePump]

Just now, IanD said:

Yes. Did I ever say anything different?

No, wasn't contradicting you or thinking you wouldn't.

There will always be selfish cyclists who rip along like they're in a velodrome

There will always be selfish dog walkers who think that their animal should be allowed to terrorise others

There will always be selfish fisherman who think they shouldn't have to pull in their rods

And there will always be selfish boaters out there who think that....well we can think of a hundred answers to that one!

[IanD]

Just now, Lady C said:

 

Yes, but if it is the pedestrian always being nice to the cyclists, this is a bit unbalanced and unfair.

So the fact that I'm nice to pedestrians when cycling and slow down, especially if there are dogs or kids or older people or prams involved, doesn't count?

 

If you only look at this from the point of view of a pedestrian *or* a cyclist, the conclusion will invariably be that "it's all the other guy's fault".

 

Have you considered that both pedestrians and cyclists (and drivers) are people, and some of them will therefore always behave like idiots? 😉

[Arthur Marshall]

As Ian will find out as he spends more towpath time, it's not a few inconsiderate cyclists spoiling it for the rest, it's the majority by a considerable margin. The careful ones are probably boaters. Electric bikes have made it ten times more dangerous. At least with the motor bikes you can hear them coming. It's a bit like dog owners - it's everybody else's dog that's out of control, ought to be on a lead or messes on the path. Only it isn't.

We don't like them because almost all of them are a pain in the backside.

[mrsmelly]

 

[blackrose]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

Then some Pakistani Muslims were part of a child abuse ring, so let's vilify the lot of them -- never mind that the majority of such abuse comes from white men, and most Muslims wouldn't *dream* of such a thing.

 

😞

 

Yes but.... since you have mentioned these unrelated issues, the reason that the majority of child abuse is perpetrated by white men is because the majority of men in this country are white. It's a bit like how some people like to say that the majority of gun and knife crime is white on white rather than black on black.

 

You can't use absolute numbers to demonstrate a point, whether you're trying to show that a certain group has a greater responsibility for that problem or you're trying to show that they don't. Instead you have to use figures based on the proportion of that group as a % of the general population. There are other metrics too and interpreting the statistics is far from simple, so I'm afraid that saying that "the majority of child abusers are white" is just as irresponsible as vilifying Pakistani Muslims for child abuse. 

 

https://fullfact.org/crime/what-do-we-know-about-ethnicity-people-involved-sexual-offences-against-children/#:~:text=It found that 36% of,profile trials for child grooming.