Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Wobbly John on 30 October, 2013, 09:50:38 pm
-
I'm using the term Idiots on Bikes (IoBs) to refer to bike riders who break the law, highway code, or do stupid things like filtering on the left of turning HGVs. Be they Neds-on-bikes, fakengers, Mamils or Weirdy-beardy-AUKs, if they ride stupidly, they're IoBs.
On YACF, there is quite a bit of condeming red-light jumping cyclists, etc. and also we are talking more about campaigning issues - go Dutch etc.
Where I live far more people are cycling, we have a new millitant cycling campaign. However, around 90% of cyclists I see, break the law. >:(
The thing I've been wondering about is how to address the issue of IoBs?
Are IoBs the product of bad cycling facilitites?
Are they the product of a generation that has had no cycle training?
Is it new cyclists or are we learning bad habits?
We complain about bad driving, but I see far more 'bad cycling'. They give cycling bad press - did we not ought to put our own house in order?
Should cycling campaigns address the issue?
What can be done?
Will 'Go Dutch' solve the issue or will it lead to more IoBs?
-
I think it's just a symptom of the de-facto rules of the road having only a vague link to the law. People do what they know usually works, regardless of their mode of transport. I expect a lot of the IoBs are the same people as the bad drivers and the lemming pedestrians.
What can be done? Better policing, I suppose.
'Going Dutch' may make IoBs less dangerous.
Should cycle campaigns address the issue? Maybe as a PR exercise? But better to demand better policing, I think.
Oh, and a local group are arguing that IoBs are because immigrants. :facepalm:
-
I don't know, but for a while I've thought that the thing that would stop me cycling in London is not motor vehicles but the danger from other cyclists.
A case in point tonight - To get away from the idiot cyclists I left the Embankment to cut back across through Pimlico (not that that matters). I came up to a traffic light where there was a bicycle at the front then a motorcycle and taxi, both indicating left. I wanted to go left as well so I stopped behind the taxi.
When the lights changed and I was moving forwards a bicycle came up on my left - and tried to straight ahead, whilst still on my left. I expressed some "dissatisfaction" with his riding and his answer was "what have I done wrong?"
The level of gross stupidity is incredible. How many people did I see with no lights, but wearing helmets (I didn't leave work until 6:30 so it was properly dark) probably 20+
-
I expect a lot of the IoBs are the same people as the bad drivers and the lemming pedestrians.
Worryingly, there seems to be a higher proportion of IoBs than IiCs. :-\
Maybe they're just more obvious.
-
Maybe the de-facto rules for what's acceptable to do while riding a bike are just stupider?
-
People do what they get away with. I think it's as simple as that. Cyclists go through red lights, motorists speed. I just hope it's not used as an excuse for more control over cycling - which wouldn't be necessary for the safety of others, in any big way.
-
It's depressing isn't it? Every time you try to campaign for some compromise for cyclists, no matter how small, you have to first overcome all the negativity created by these cretins.
Last night there was the guy who was riding along one handed, attempting to hold a rear light behind him. Except he couldn't direct it properly and it was just pointing sideways. Because it was a bit windy he was weaving around all over the place.
Tonight it was the usual crowd of unlit, red light jumping, undertaking morons who were the most evident crowd. However, lots of "smartphone glow" coming from the laps of drivers in traffic, so there's plenty of idiocy to go around!!!
-
Last night there was the guy who was riding along one handed, attempting to hold a rear light behind him. Except he couldn't direct it properly and it was just pointing sideways. Because it was a bit windy he was weaving around all over the place.
I think this would score points for effort in the odd lighting decisions (https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=76520.0) thread.
-
The cycle facilities we get infantilize cycling, taking responsibility for safety away from cyclists and making them dependant on the road designers getting it right and motorists being aware of the new (often unstated) rules that are required to make edge based facilities safe.
We then get a generation of cyclists who belive that staying to the left is always, the right choice, that all pavements are just not shared use yet and that whatever happens there's nowt they can do about it and its some else's fault.
I'd rather be responsible for my own safety.
-
People do what they get away with. I think it's as simple as that. Cyclists go through red lights, motorists speed. I just hope it's not used as an excuse for more control over cycling - which wouldn't be necessary for the safety of others, in any big way.
Of those who get the opportunity, the same proportion of cyclists as motorists go through red lights.
-
Of those that can pedal fast enough, the same proportion of cyclists as motorists would probably speed. :demon:
-
I've said it before on this forum but most (not all) of my issues with my (very infrequent) drives into London are with cyclists.
I do my best not to kill them and, so far, have succeeded, but really it's been close sometimes and many don't help their own cause.
Possibly it's a case of many London cyclists not being drivers and not appreciating the needs of the driver. That would be the reverse of the issue elsewhere, where most drivers aren't cyclists and don't appreciate our needs.
Whatever the reason I always come away thinking "what a bunch of dick heads".
The blue "Boris Highways" may be the answer in so far as they keep incompetent cyclists away from cars (I suspect the idea was the opposite but whatever works is fine).
I'm happy not to drive or cycle in London for 364 days a year.
-
Yes, motorists go through red lights, too:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/labour-mp-who-called-cyclists-law-breakers-busted-for-running-a-red/015603
We complain about bad driving, but I see far more 'bad cycling'.
I don't. I see bad driving everywhere all the time, and it's more dangerous than anything cyclists do. It's just that blatant IoBs stand out more. Yes it isn't good for PR, but to balance that, there is an increasing amount of good publicity for cycling in general, I feel.
-
We complain about bad driving, but I see far more 'bad cycling'.
I certainly don't, and you can't even tell the MOT worthiness or insurance credentials of a car.
-
I see far more bad cycling, and because the idiots are closer to me I am at risk more often from it - I would estimate that I am at risk from accidents from other cycling idiots on 50% of my commuting journeys, that's far higher than motor vehicles.
Without trying very hard I can think of another one this week. Taking the "off-road" route along the river, between two blind 90 degree bends another cyclist tried to overtake me (I was taking it easy because I can't see round blind bends). He met another cyclist coming the other way and lacking a plan B swerved straight into me, so I had to brake suddenly to avoid him.
What made it much worse though was 100 metres further along, where the path was straight again, there was a woman walking along with a child of about 2 years old - when I see children or dogs I slow down because they're unpredictable and I don't wish to cause them harm. Not this guy, didn't slacken his pace and as he came up towards them the child suddenly veered into his path. He swerved and the mother went into his path.
-
A cyclist swerved and avoided an accident. Sounds terrifying. But that's the difference, cyclists may nearly hit other people, drivers do hit other people.
-
I'm telling you what I experience on a regular basis, if you wish to dismiss it that's fine by me. But it's not just swerving to avoid accidents. What I didn't bother with because I was only dealing with this week is that in the last few years I've found myself lying in the road 3 times because when I've stopped for traffic lights, not emergency stops, other cyclists have ploughed into the back of me. One of them ended up with a broken arm after his short flight.
Cyclists have hit me, car drivers haven't.
-
All my close shaves over the last ummmm year? have been with cyclists. Actually, that's not true, the other night I had a WVM almost take me out as he was pulling out from the side of the road, but that's still something like 9:1 against cyclists.
The problem is that IoB come in three shapes. The first shape is the bimbling blinkered cyclist that has no idea what is going on around them. Often seen with those round helmets, iPod in ears and some sort of city bike, they are totally oblivious to anything else on the road and they depend on everyone else to keep them alive. They actually tend to be the least dangerous. The next two present a similar danger: the (normally young) rider who has some skill but wears a cloak on invulnerability, and the Superior Cyclist, who can Do Anything and Go Anywhere and nobody is going to tell him what to do. That second sort is the exact same as the IiC.
The only answer I can see is education, that and enforcement - equal to bikes and cars. The City Police have successfully done some of that and as a result cyclist (and driver) behaviour in the cuty has improved substantially over recent years. If only other areas would follow their example.
-
The great thing about a bike is that you can get on it and ride. That's the attraction (and one we should sell). It's easy and cheap. You don't need training, licenses, insurance. You can get on and go. It's also generally the preserve of younger people, and let's face, if you're young you have little appreciation of your own mortality. You drink, you smoke, you slide down the side of large lorries. Cycling, by definition, isn't rule-based, any more than being a pedestrian is. Even Swiss cyclists don't follow rules.
This is a group of 'proper cyclists'. You see that in the threads about cycling infrastructure and facilities. We have mudguards and lights capable of waking the undead. We'd cycle to the Moon via an A road. We take it all very seriously. That said, I see plenty of proper cyclists behaving like idiots too, but that mostly seems to be the race mentality, where every commute is a stage on the TdF.
I see a lot of idiot cyclists. Yes, they're annoying and, no, they don't help the cause of cycling. But I kind of understand it. But it's also bullshit to categorise the danger as akin to motorised vehicles. Sorry, I've been hit by a car and I'd much rather it were a errant cyclist. I really don't recommend you try this experiment but I think you'd agree. In several years of London cycling I've been knocked off by one car and no cyclists.
You're not going to get 'professional cyclists'. It's not the nature of the game. But you can change the culture, shame and the occasional FPN go a long way. Mostly it's not a case of following specific rules, it's just a case of not being such a dick. In the end though, life's too short to spend your life worrying about someone scooting down the pavement. Maybe we should accept a little more freedom and stop pretending bikes are merely little cars.
-
The great thing about a
bike car is that you can get in it and ride drive. That's the attraction (and one we should sell). It's easy and cheap. You don't need training, licenses, insurance. You can get in and go.
-
Yes, but.
The problem is that people have difficulty understanding when rules work in everyone's favour. By all means get on yer bike, but in some circumstances it really is better for everyone if you follow some rules.
-
A cyclist swerved and avoided an accident. Sounds terrifying. But that's the difference, cyclists may nearly hit other people, drivers do hit other people.
This reply summarises the problem, you aren't allowed to mention that some cyclists are idiots without antagonising people into pointing out that some car drivers are idiots.
We all know car drivers hit other people and that cars present a higher risk of serious injury but it's not as simple as car drivers bad, cyclists good. Why can't we mention that some cyclists are idiots? There are plenty of threads where we can say the same of motorists.
"cyclists may nearly hit other people" is ignoring some replies where cyclists HAVE hit people.
Just as I am tarred with the "selfish motorist" brush because I drive a car I am concerned that I am also tarred with the "Red light jumper" brush, and the "Bloody cyclists" brush because of some cycling idiots in towns and cities.
Cycling through Winchester last week some tosser wearing full pin-stripe suit, sam-brown belt and day-glo helmet came barrelling down the pavement (one way street), slalom-ing through the pedestrians. It's a steep downhill and he was flying along relying on people not to suddenly turn to look in a shop window. He'd have hospitalised them (and himself I imagine).
If I was guessing I'd say he was a barrister or some professional along those lines (Winchester is full of them).
I just heard a "Fucking cyclists" from a pedestrian closest to me. Not "Fucking Tosser" (which he was) but "Fucking cyclists". That's my issue with idiot cyclists. I imagine many careful and responsible White van drivers get pissed off as well (I'd ask them if they put their fucking mobile phone down for a second).
I know someone will now say "yebbut..motorists are bad" but hey-ho, what can you do?.
-
Spot on, Paul.
-
The great thing about a bike is that you can get on it and ride. That's the attraction (and one we should sell). It's easy and cheap. You don't need training, licenses, insurance. You can get on and go. It's also generally the preserve of younger people, and let's face, if you're young you have little appreciation of your own mortality. You drink, you smoke, you slide down the side of large lorries. Cycling, by definition, isn't rule-based, any more than being a pedestrian is. Even Swiss cyclists don't follow rules.
This is a group of 'proper cyclists'. You see that in the threads about cycling infrastructure and facilities. We have mudguards and lights capable of waking the undead. We'd cycle to the Moon via an A road. We take it all very seriously. That said, I see plenty of proper cyclists behaving like idiots too, but that mostly seems to be the race mentality, where every commute is a stage on the TdF.
I see a lot of idiot cyclists. Yes, they're annoying and, no, they don't help the cause of cycling. But I kind of understand it. But it's also bullshit to categorise the danger as akin to motorised vehicles. Sorry, I've been hit by a car and I'd much rather it were a errant cyclist. I really don't recommend you try this experiment but I think you'd agree. In several years of London cycling I've been knocked off by one car and no cyclists.
You're not going to get 'professional cyclists'. It's not the nature of the game. But you can change the culture, shame and the occasional FPN go a long way. Mostly it's not a case of following specific rules, it's just a case of not being such a dick. In the end though, life's too short to spend your life worrying about someone scooting down the pavement. Maybe we should accept a little more freedom and stop pretending bikes are merely little cars.
Love it - POTD material.
I agree with most apart from the last paragraph. Freedom is great, until you interact with other people - not just if you cause injury or inconvenience by your actions, but in perception. Perception changes culture - up to a few years ago, cyclists were portrayed in television dramas, as weirdy losers. Now much less so - possibly due to more people cycling, but also the positive portayal leads to increased numbers cycling.
Contempt of the rules breeds contempt of the rules. >:(
Rules of the road are there to try to get us to play nicely together, and if we don't play nicely, eventually someone gets hurt.
-
I think the IoBs we identify tend to be doing obviously illegal things like ignoring red lights and riding unlit, whereas IiCs are doing what everyone does - speeding just a bit, for instance. The rules we all have to (should) follow are made mostly if not entirely due to motor traffic - traffic lights are a good example, if all traffic was nimble bikes and slow horse carriages, we simply wouldn't need them because we'd just navigate round each other. It can be a pain to stop at a red light on a bike, especially up hill or heavily laden. In a car it might be frustrating having to wait, but it's not actually an effort and won't leave you wet and cold. The rules are very car-based and we're also a very rule-following society; even the most law breaking IoB in Europe probably follows more rules than an average Indian driver.
-
There's also a particularly vulnerable type of pedestrian - the vulnerable either through age or infirmity - who take particular car on the road and therefore perceive themselves as safe. They wait until cars have stopped at crossings, etc etc. That group feel particularly threatened by the anti social behaviour of cyclists such as riding at speed on the pavement, pushing through crossings; there is no answer to that and it is pretty much a unique IoB cyclist behaviour - chasing down the vulnerable where they should feel safe.
-
I agree with most apart from the last paragraph. Freedom is great, until you interact with other people - not just if you cause injury or inconvenience by your actions, but in perception. Perception changes culture - up to a few years ago, cyclists were portrayed in television dramas, as weirdy losers. Now much less so - possibly due to more people cycling, but also the positive portayal leads to increased numbers cycling.
Maybe it's normalisation that is key. Cycling still tends towards the extremes, trendy hipster and needs-must-be-BSOs on the one side, the professional commuting road warrior on the other. I still think that middle ground is sparse. I think you start to fill up that gap then something else starts to happen and that's peer pressure. If everyone else is waiting at the lights, scooting through suddenly seems less palatable.
To be honest, I'm seeing more of that. When I first starting cycling in London it often seemed like I was the only person who stopped at the damn lights. Now, it's often the exception (including every cycle courier in London) who rides on through. Too many? Probably, but then I see plenty of cars sail through red lights too.
Cyclists are the most annoying thing on my commute. I'd like the death penalty to be bought in for cyclists who push in front of me at the lights. But are they most dangerous thing? No. I think we have to keep that in perspective. I'd rather be annoyed than dead.
-
I agree with Paul in that the problem with IoB's (or 'fucking cyclists') is the way we all get tarred with the same brush in some peoples eyes and one is too many.
The thing is, you can take IoB's and OiC's and scrap that. Instead insert IotM (Idiots on the Move) as I believe the total disreguard the idiot cyclist or driver displays for the safety and sensibilities of themselves and others is displayed whatever form of transport they utilise. They are the pedestrian who steps out without looking or takes up the whole pavement whilst stopped to converse with a mate- the rail/ bus passenger who bags their seat and their luggage bags the seat next to them. They just don;'t give a flying fuck about anybody else.
Iit is an increasing sense of the 'Fuck You Jack, I'm Alright' attitude in society.
-
People do what they get away with. I think it's as simple as that. Cyclists go through red lights, motorists speed.
No, motorists speed AND jump red lights [see several corroborative posts in this thread.]
They also cut up cyclists, yak on their mobiles, drive without MOTs or insurance, etc etc ...
And they kill people. In numbers. Every week.
[This doesn't make the cycling idiots right, but I'd take them over the driving idiots any day. ]
-
People do what they get away with. I think it's as simple as that. Cyclists go through red lights, motorists speed.
No, motorists speed AND jump red lights [see several corroborative posts in this thread.]
I know! I'm the one who posted this link: http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/labour-mp-who-called-cyclists-law-breakers-busted-for-running-a-red/015603
-
There's also a particularly vulnerable type of pedestrian - the vulnerable either through age or infirmity - who take particular car on the road and therefore perceive themselves as safe. They wait until cars have stopped at crossings, etc etc. That group feel particularly threatened by the anti social behaviour of cyclists such as riding at speed on the pavement, pushing through crossings; there is no answer to that and it is pretty much a unique IoB cyclist behaviour - chasing down the vulnerable where they should feel safe.
More pedestrians are killed on the pavement by motor vehicles* than the total killed by cyclists on pavement or road.
* Just emergency vehicles, actually.
-
Is an idiot in a minority any less of an idiot? I think part of the point is that criticism is less of a one size fits all when it comes from within the peer group. This is not motorists (or the whole of the rest of the world) having a go at cyclists in general but some cyclists having a go at those we feel let us down. I don't think anyone has suggested that cyclists en masse are more of a threat than motorists.
-
No-one on this thread has said it's IoBs going round killing people, so there's no need to keep refuting it (Clarion, MattC, Ian).
It's the low-level and indirect stuff that is the problem. Cycle campaigners have to spend half their time saying we don't all go through red lights. Drivers using a righteous sense of indignation at IoB behaviour to justify aggressive and dangerous driving. A raised level of aggression and tension produced by selfish and thoughtless IoBing.
And I'm with Ham on the vulnerable pedestrians thing. Having now officially joined that group, with limited walking mobility, I've become much more sensitised to pavement and salmon cycling. Knowing that I can't easily jump out of the way of an unpredictable and thoughtless pavement cyclist and that even a minor tumble is likely to be more serious for me than it once was, makes me feel much more wary and tense around IoBs. If we truly want to transform urban space for all, we as cyclists need to change our behaviour to be more considerate to others and not instinctively trot out the "cars kill people" line every time an IoB is called to account.
-
You're completely right Jo.
But I've come to the conclusion that we will ALWAYS have some idiots on bikes - mainly because of what fuzzy said:
"Instead insert IotM (Idiots on the Move) as I believe the total disreguard the idiot cyclist or driver displays for the safety and sensibilities of themselves and others is displayed whatever form of transport they utilise. They are the pedestrian who steps out without looking or takes up the whole pavement whilst stopped to converse with a mate- the rail/ bus passenger who bags their seat and their luggage bags the seat next to them. They just don;'t give a flying fuck about anybody else."
Taking the big view, I can't get worked up about these people just cos they happen to be on bikes. They will always be "letting us down", if you choose to see it that way. You have my permission to take out any with your crutch as you see appropriate!
[I know i'm a bit biased here - pavement/salmon cycling just isn't a problem out here in the stix, probably as we have more space and less bikes. Whereas I see dangerous/illegal driving on every trip.]
-
The interesting thing is, with a little attention from the BiB, the number and proportion of IoB drops VERY rapidly. That's worked pretty well in the city, and if it was applied even handedly in all urban congested areas, life would improve for all.
I forgot to mention, there was a Met "cycle trap" handing tickets to cyclists who earned them on the approach to the new cycle facility last night (by Kit Kat terrace - were they just on a break?), I did almost stop to ask them how many tickets they'd handed out to drivers.....
-
No-one on this thread has said it's IoBs going round killing people, so there's no need to keep refuting it (Clarion, MattC, Ian).
It's the low-level and indirect stuff that is the problem. Cycle campaigners have to spend half their time saying we don't all go through red lights. Drivers using a righteous sense of indignation at IoB behaviour to justify aggressive and dangerous driving. A raised level of aggression and tension produced by selfish and thoughtless IoBing.
And I'm with Ham on the vulnerable pedestrians thing. Having now officially joined that group, with limited walking mobility, I've become much more sensitised to pavement and salmon cycling. Knowing that I can't easily jump out of the way of an unpredictable and thoughtless pavement cyclist and that even a minor tumble is likely to be more serious for me than it once was, makes me feel much more wary and tense around IoBs. If we truly want to transform urban space for all, we as cyclists need to change our behaviour to be more considerate to others and not instinctively trot out the "cars kill people" line every time an IoB is called to account.
And that vulnerability and perception of pedestrians is exactly why the idiotic TfL bus stop bypass is a cretinous idea.
-
May I nominate the POBSO, in a black hoody, cycling down the unlit dual carriageway NSL section of the A45 at about 10.30 p.m. last night.... with absolutely no lights whatsoever. :facepalm:
About 1/2 a mile on was an example of the complete opposite. Man on bike, with excellent lights, and retroflective clothing, panniers, etc.
-
No-one on this thread has said it's IoBs going round killing people, so there's no need to keep refuting it (Clarion, MattC, Ian).
It's the low-level and indirect stuff that is the problem. Cycle campaigners have to spend half their time saying we don't all go through red lights. Drivers using a righteous sense of indignation at IoB behaviour to justify aggressive and dangerous driving. A raised level of aggression and tension produced by selfish and thoughtless IoBing.
And I'm with Ham on the vulnerable pedestrians thing. Having now officially joined that group, with limited walking mobility, I've become much more sensitised to pavement and salmon cycling. Knowing that I can't easily jump out of the way of an unpredictable and thoughtless pavement cyclist and that even a minor tumble is likely to be more serious for me than it once was, makes me feel much more wary and tense around IoBs. If we truly want to transform urban space for all, we as cyclists need to change our behaviour to be more considerate to others and not instinctively trot out the "cars kill people" line every time an IoB is called to account.
And that vulnerability and perception of pedestrians is exactly why the idiotic TfL bus stop bypass is a cretinous idea.
Maybe I've missed something along the way but what is the better alternative?
-
I've said it several times: The one thing CS7 gets right.
-
You'll have to point me to a post that describes this - I've only seen paint stopping before a stop on CS7. You surely can't be saying that's better for a cyclist?
-
No-one on this thread has said it's IoBs going round killing people, so there's no need to keep refuting it (Clarion, MattC, Ian).
It's the low-level and indirect stuff that is the problem. Cycle campaigners have to spend half their time saying we don't all go through red lights. Drivers using a righteous sense of indignation at IoB behaviour to justify aggressive and dangerous driving. A raised level of aggression and tension produced by selfish and thoughtless IoBing.
And I'm with Ham on the vulnerable pedestrians thing. Having now officially joined that group, with limited walking mobility, I've become much more sensitised to pavement and salmon cycling. Knowing that I can't easily jump out of the way of an unpredictable and thoughtless pavement cyclist and that even a minor tumble is likely to be more serious for me than it once was, makes me feel much more wary and tense around IoBs. If we truly want to transform urban space for all, we as cyclists need to change our behaviour to be more considerate to others and not instinctively trot out the "cars kill people" line every time an IoB is called to account.
I think the only comment I refuted was that related to 'cyclists more of a risk'. You'll get no argument from me that cyclists ought to be more considerate.
I think really though that we don't have 'cyclists' and 'drivers', they're just people, and many are inconsiderate. The worse pavement cyclists in my area are the estate monkeys, usually found travelling at speed on their 'previously-owned' bike along the pavement (often on an empty road) with a phone jammed to their ear. Despite an evident lack of bike skills, having any hand on the handlebars is a sign of weakness, it's best to slalom down the pavement. I expect they don't reserve the anti-social behaviour for the pavement cycling.
That said, on the other hand, I regularly see fully kitted out cyclists on expensive bikes hammering down park paths (Surrey Canal is a good example). That pisses me off, it's clearly a space shared with pedestrians (and Peckham pedestrians operate with a level of uncertainty that would have surprised Heisenberg). There seems a reluctance amongst many cyclists to slow down and share the space. It's possibly the same sense of false urgency that infects drivers.
I still think normalisation is the key. Shared spaces seem to work in other countries.
But yes, generally, I want urban spaces to be slower and shared. I think cyclists may have to give up a little to let that happen, but the benefits of removing the primacy of motor vehicles from urban environments, to me, make any minor sacrifices on my part worthwhile.
-
But yes, generally, I want urban spaces to be slower and shared. I think cyclists may have to give up a little to let that happen, but the benefits of removing the primacy of motor vehicles from urban environments, to me, make any minor sacrifices on my part worthwhile.
Absofuckinbloodylutely. It's as much about football and cake as drivers and cyclists.
-
Whilst out cycling on NCN route 27 on a cycle-path I came up to a group of walkers using the whole width of the path,
I slowed to walking pace,moved left, shouted "excuse me please" and ...nothing,
shouted "mind yer backs folks" at which point some moved left some right and one or two of the afore-mentioned walkers carried on in the middle of the carriageway regardless.
After performing various s shaped slow speed manouvers I reached the head of the "pack" whereapon a lady walker shouted after me "you should have used your bell".
I don't have a bell on the drop bars, finding it safer to keep my hands on the brake hoods and shout.
I think bells on the whole are a good idea in principle, but generally find a cheery "excuse me" followed by a "thankyou", works better. Am I an idiot cyclist?
-
You just came up behind some idiot walkers. Believe it or not, some of them can't cope with civility from cyclists because it challenges their world view. (And some of them are just fine - like some cyclists). Grumpy people are just grumpy whatever they're doing. And there's no requirement to have a bell, just one to be considerate - which you were!
-
Whilst out cycling on NCN route 27 on a cycle-path I came up to a group of walkers using the whole width of the path,
I slowed to walking pace,moved left, shouted "excuse me please" and ...nothing,
shouted "mind yer backs folks" at which point some moved left some right and one or two of the afore-mentioned walkers carried on in the middle of the carriageway regardless.
After performing various s shaped slow speed manouvers I reached the head of the "pack" whereapon a lady walker shouted after me "you should have used your bell".
I don't have a bell on the drop bars, finding it safer to keep my hands on the brake hoods and shout.
I think bells on the whole are a good idea in principle, but generally find a cheery "excuse me" followed by a "thankyou", works better. Am I an idiot cyclist?
Definitely not - you have an "audible warning device" - i.e.your voice. When challenged I have remarked that I fel it's better manners to talk to people than ring a bell at them.
-
Some times I bark like a friendly dog or make meow noises.
It entertains me.
-
And I often call out, "ding ding!". Often raises a smile from the pass-ees.
Although a child's bike's bulb horn is most effective IME. The more comic the tone, the better - it can be heard from much further away, so gives pedestrians much more time to react.
-
thanks for the vote of confidence folks, my wife remarked that "she probably had her 'right of way' boots on! It would be really useful to have some general rules of the road on multi-use paths, eg. cyclists to left walkers to right etc. Any thoughts?
-
Don't cycle over 10 mph when on a shared path, unless it's empty of pedestrians. That's my rule. At that speed you can stop safely without hitting anyone ( unless they jumped out in right front of you, which can happen.... but at that speed, hurt and injury will be minimal). Also, at that speed you won't freak out people travelling along at a slower pace. That's also important... Shared off road paths should be peaceful and pleasant for all their users. They shouldn't feel unsafe places where you, your small dog or child needs to be constantly aware at all times of what's around them. They should be a space where the most vulnerable road users can relax a bit. Onus on people cycling, as those with greater potential for causing harm in this situation, to take most of the responsibility for safety here.
-
I find the amusement I get from the confusion helps me slow to a smiling stop if the need be. I think a bit of fulmination would have broadened my smile, if anything....
-
I'd agree with Jane on useful thoughts on riding in shared use space. I'd probably go a little further though and say about 5mph is the right speed when approaching pedestrians. The key is, assuming you are approaching from behind, that at the point they turn round to see you, you appear to be matching their speed, and only with their consent do you speed up to overtake.
It can be surprisingly stressful as a pedestrian in a shared space wondering if there might be a rider approaching from behind. Having to keep turning round just to check can be wearisome. Even if you hear a bell or pleasant 'hello', not knowing whether cyclist is bearing down rapidly or politely hovering behind can make going for a relaxing walk challenging. And all this doubly so when walking the dog.
-
I broadly agree with the two J's on this. I don't necessarily keep my speed down to 10mph just because it's a shared path but certainly when passing pedestrians, especially with their backs to me, I'll slow right down and always be prepared to give way to them. Apart from anything else, some people are prone to suddenly turning round or jumping sideways in surprise, and you'll probably come off worse than them! If there's a large group or kids, dogs or people who don't seem to have noticed me, I'll usually call out "Excuse me" or "Good afternoon" or something like that, rather than ring a bell. Rules like pedestrians keep left never work. I'm still slightly surprised how well cyclists keep left on the Bristol-Bath Railway Path!
-
Many IoB got their comeuppance on Friday in Oxford - there were 4 police cars in various locations, each with at least 2 officers nicking unlit cyclists left, right, and centre. The schadenfreude from the lit ones was almost tangible. :-)
I find the best way of alerting pedestrians on the cycling side of a shared path is squeaky brakes! For a little while I had the rod brakes on the front of the clunker set to squeak deliberately (they never did work as a retardation device, so I also had a drum brake). I used the bell if I wanted to be polite.
-
I find the best way of alerting pedestrians on the cycling side of a shared path is squeaky brakes! For a little while I had the rod brakes on the front of the clunker set to squeak deliberately (they never did work as a retardation device, so I also had a drum brake). I used the bell if I wanted to be polite.
Squeaky brakes or a noisy downshift seem to work much better than ringing a bell or saying something polite. I assume because it's a mechanical noise that says 'bicycle' without the assumption of aggression that comes with a bell about 50% of the time. Studded tyres on hard surfaces can also work.
-
... without the assumption of aggression that comes with a bell about 50% of the time.
whereapon a lady walker shouted after me "you should have used your bell".
Summary:
Cyclists, you can't win!
-
I find that flicking the brake levers works well as a non aggressive bikey noise.
-
I broadly agree with the two J's on this. I don't necessarily keep my speed down to 10mph just because it's a shared path but certainly when passing pedestrians, especially with their backs to me, I'll slow right down and always be prepared to give way to them. Apart from anything else, some people are prone to suddenly turning round or jumping sideways in surprise, and you'll probably come off worse than them! If there's a large group or kids, dogs or people who don't seem to have noticed me, I'll usually call out "Excuse me" or "Good afternoon" or something like that, rather than ring a bell. Rules like pedestrians keep left never work. I'm still slightly surprised how well cyclists keep left on the Bristol-Bath Railway Path!
It's much the same on the Plymouth-Dartmoor railway path, although I do wonder why more pedestrians and dog-walkers don't use the alternative footpaths in preference.
-
thanks for the vote of confidence folks, my wife remarked that "she probably had her 'right of way' boots on! It would be really useful to have some general rules of the road on multi-use paths, eg. cyclists to left walkers to right etc. Any thoughts?
On cyclepaths that have been created from footpaths, pedestrians retain right of way. If different 'lanes' are marked, the cyclists must stay in their lane but pedestrians can walk where they like.
-
... without the assumption of aggression that comes with a bell about 50% of the time.
whereapon a lady walker shouted after me "you should have used your bell".
Yup, whenever I try for a polite "hello" instead of a bell I still get grumpy responses "use your bell" (mostly from self-righteous type, older people, and then mostly from women). I think the best is to use your bell from some distance as you approach, then call out.
Although if they're still ignoring you, let loose the Airzound on full blast :demon:
-
The other advantage of voice or random mechanical noises over a typical bell is that they're less affected by age-related hearing loss.
-
Wait ... wait ... wait ...
Then shout "EXCUSE ME".
Most folks leap out of the way. If they whinge - and you've maintained 20mph+ - you'll barely hear them.