I used to wonder why the subject of cyclists on our roads raised such strong
emotions. I've been cycling to work myself for the past 10 years, in all but
the most inclement weather.

Certainly there are quite a few that break the rules and it irritates many
including myself. Sometimes I've had good reason to offer a driver a piece
of my mind, if I managed to catch up of course. The usual scenario is the
overtaking and left turn manouver that fails to take account of a cyclists
presence.

I used to think the cyclist had a bit of a raw deal, now I'm not so sure.

What's really getting to me recently is the incredibly self righteous
prowling our pavements. I had a run in with one last night who came hurtling
toward a group waiting at a bus stop. Accusing one man of "trying to be
macho" for not getting out of his way, he then offered his opinions on "all
of us driving our cars and polluting the air" in spite of the fact that we
were obviously waiting for a bus. Not letting this pass without comment,
myself and another would be bus passenger were offered the opportunity for
mortal combat with this shaven headed screamer. He would never understand
why I declined, in spite of being equally fit and about 30% larger.

The place of course was none other than Britain's favourite street,
Streatham High Road.

What worries me most about this is that it's reached the point that this is
considered normal behaviour and a whole generation have come to understand
that no-one wants to enforce the law, or even that such laws exist in the
first place.

In the absence of law, perhaps our Mayor should be tackling this as a vermin
issue, he's quite upstanding when it comes to pidgeons I hear.

Jeff Mowatt

Thanks all for those thoughts. I'm pleased to learn that there's a concensus
that the pavement should be a place for walking and one shouldn't need to be
looking over one's shoulder all the time for cyclist appearing from nowhere.

A few years back I signed up with that London cycling campaign but cancelled
the subscription when I heard their director talking on the BBC, trying to
justify the very thing we are talking about here. His argument being that
it was understandable since our roads are too hazardous, which of course
they are, but it doesn't mean we have to intimidate others.

From his hysterical statements, the young man in my example quite obviously
believed he was standing up for a cause, the freedom to engage in healthy
exercise unipeded by the nuisance of pedestrians. To be fair there are many
pavement cyclists who defer to those who might not be aware of their
presence, but there's a growing trend for quite the opposite, a kind of
street fascism which is not that far removed from his expression of
individual freedom and we don't even have the sound of jackboots to alert
us.

Quite often one sees groups of youths patrolling the pavement together
weaving in and out of pedestrians in an agressive manner. It is obviously
meant to intimidate, perhaps claim ownership of an area and maybe distract
attention from ongoing crime. For many there's simply the quite reasonable
fear of street robbery and a quick getaway for the perpetrators.

I can't imagine I'm the only one to notice these things, but it seems to go
completely over the heads of those that we pay to provide safety and free
passage on our streets.

Jeff Mowatt

"Jeff Mowatt" wrote the following in:


Thanks all for those thoughts. I'm pleased to learn that there's a
concensus that the pavement should be a place for walking and one
shouldn't need to be looking over one's shoulder all the time for
cyclist appearing from nowhere.

A few years back I signed up with that London cycling campaign but
cancelled the subscription when I heard their director talking on
the BBC, trying to justify the very thing we are talking about
here. His argument being that it was understandable since our
roads are too hazardous, which of course they are, but it doesn't
mean we have to intimidate others.

From his hysterical statements, the young man in my example quite
obviously believed he was standing up for a cause, the freedom to
engage in healthy exercise unipeded by the nuisance of
pedestrians. To be fair there are many pavement cyclists who defer
to those who might not be aware of their presence, but there's a
growing trend for quite the opposite, a kind of street fascism
which is not that far removed from his expression of individual
freedom and we don't even have the sound of jackboots to alert us.

I must admit to being a regular pavement cyclist. I often cycle on the
way to and from my local station and while I try as much as possible to
stay on the road, there are some stretches where the nature of the road
forces me to cycle on the pavement. In particular there is one stretch
with speed bumps so numerous and severe that it's both uncomfortable
and tiring to cycle there, and another where the traffic is so fast and
constant that it is near impossible and extremely dangerous to cross
the road to get to the correct side for cycling. There is a mini-
roundabout that should make it easy for a road user to join the faster
road, but in practice this roundabout is ignored by almost all drivers
even if you're in a car. If you're on a bike you have no chance
whatsoever.

On the stretches where I do cycle on the pavement I show as much
respect as possible. I avoid pedestrians and slow down and cycle behind
them at walking pace, keeping a good distance away from them, if they
are blocking the whole pavement.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Jeff Mowatt wrote:

Thanks all for those thoughts. I'm pleased to learn that there's a concensus
that the pavement should be a place for walking and one shouldn't need to be
looking over one's shoulder all the time for cyclist appearing from nowhere.

This consensus is unfortunately not shared by many traffic engineers,
who tend to think
(1) that pedestrians and cyclists are second-class citizens who have to
be kept out of the way of cars
(2) that pedestrians are too stupid to keep out of the way of cars
unless fenced in
(3) that no normal person is willing to share a road with fast or heavy
traffic on a bike.

They then engineer the road to maximise the difficulty of motor vehicles
overtaking any cyclist that does have the temerity to use the road -
thus ensuring that cyclists are frightened off.

If they have money for cycling, they will try to spend it on converting
pavements to shared use, regardless of the type of road. I am in the
process of trying to prevent a developer making the pavements shared-use
alongside roads that are being implemented as a 'home zone' - which
supposedly prioritises people over motor vehicles.

I am ONLY in favour of shared use pavements for contraflow travel along
a dual carriageway to get to the nearest crossing point.

I also believe cycling should generally be allowed on footpaths that
don't parallel roads. The idea of park rangers having the power to fine
inconsiderate or dangerous cyclists on the spot is also a good one.

From his hysterical statements, the young man in my example quite obviously
believed he was standing up for a cause, the freedom to engage in healthy
exercise unipeded by the nuisance of pedestrians. To be fair there are many
pavement cyclists who defer to those who might not be aware of their
presence, but there's a growing trend for quite the opposite, a kind of
street fascism which is not that far removed from his expression of
individual freedom and we don't even have the sound of jackboots to alert
us.

There is an urgent need for good on-road cycle training. Proper
assertive cycling can cope with almost any road conditions safely,
albeit sometimes at the cost of annoying drivers on roads that have been
engineered without any thought of cyclists. Very few drivers
deliberately endanger cyclists; you have to learn to control them so
that they don't do so inadvertently. I'd almost go so far as to say that
if you are frightened off any road, you need more cycle training - but I
might make an exception for narrow, twisty roads with 50 or 60 mph
limits.

Colin McKenzie

I wonder if anyone here was the "gentleman" aged about 50 who blythely
sailed through a group including 3 young children and a pregant woman who'd
waited patienty at the pedestrian crossing on Westminster Bridge on Saturday
morning? I won't repeat here what I expressed at the time, only remind you
that you are old enough to know better. Why did you look so offended I
wonder?

Getting metaphorically, back in the saddle and also on my soapbox, there's
something else the cyclist has to endure and the way in which many
motorcyclists behave. We often occupy the same roadspace and meeting one
head on in a "game of chicken" with them on the wrong side of the road is a
frequent experience while attempting a right turn or positioning for one at
traffic lights.

More than once I've been forced out of my saddle by those that insist on
using designated cycle routes and can't wait for legitmate users to go
through the barriers provided specifically for our use. I won't condone
pavement cycling but I can understand why so many are put off using the
roads.

In many cases these barriers are vandalised such that the passage of
motorcycles, specifically scooters, is more easily facilitated. I've been
trying to persuade Wandsworth Council to repair one in front of a local
school for the past 18 months to no avail. I've even seen one of their
traffic wardens in full uniforrn abusing this particular barrier at the time
when many children cycle to school. The Council don't see it as an issue,
obviously.

Jeff Mowatt