Media demonisation of cyclists, there's more.

redddraggon

AndyManc wrote:

Meanwhile ( name of the forum contributor ) , you're contradicting yourself ., quite right in your comment " Oxford Rd in Manchester is a real mess " , and then condemning cyclists that extradite themselves from that mess by jumping onto the pavement ...... or do you think their should be 'bike no-go areas' on our roads ........ , well I've got news for ya ..... THERE SHOULDN'T BE , in city centres .... inc. Oxford road , the majority should be NO CAR ZONES.

The problem on Oxford Road is not cars, it's Polish/Albanians/Somalians driving buses.

meanwhile

AndyManc wrote:

Meanwhile ( name of the forum contributor ) , you're contradicting yourself ., quite right in your comment " Oxford Rd in Manchester is a real mess " , and then condemning cyclists that extradite themselves from that mess by jumping onto the pavement ...... or do you think their should be 'bike no-go areas' on our roads ........ ,

I'm not contradicting myself; I'm contradicting you. If Oxford Rd scares you - and its the road that inspires most pavement hopping in Mcr - use one of the parallel streets. It's legal, safe, and sensible. There's no law that says that every road in the UK has to seem unintimidating to the biggest coward in the country.

Spouting eco-warrior hypocrisy to justify making the pavements dangerous and unpleasant for other people just makes you seem like more of a dweeb. A pedestrian could easily cite the smae claptrap for putting an umbrella in your eye - except in court he'd say "I just looked - and this cyclist was on the pavement heading straight for me - I threw my arms up in horror and the poor fellow rode straight into my brolly." Riding on the pavement is actually quite dangerous statistically...

Finally, let's listen to some more bollocks:

or do you think their should be 'bike no-go areas' on our roads ........ ,

Hello? If you're riding on the pavement, you're accepting that the road is a "no go area". You don't make it any less so by using the pavement than by using another road. You just make more of a nuisance of yourself and scare old people.

meanwhile

AndyManc wrote:

The latest stats that I've seen published are 150 cyclists killed each year ( 3 each week ) and 15,000 .... yes fifteen thousand injured every year.

A more intelligent person would instantly realize this ratio means the figures are pure bs, unless "injury" equals "stubbed toe", "hurt feelings", "felt poorly for a minute after drinking lukewarm water from bike bottle", etc.

Obviously a number of those 15,000 will be left in a vegative state.

Not really. Persistent vegetative state mostly equals "death" when life support is turned off. There will be some brain damage, but it you can't assume it's high in proportion to deaths - there's no reason to believe that most deaths are head injuries. Do some research and then come back to us.

I'm not scared to ride on the roads, I'm just a competent risk annalist

Truer words were never spoken.

If on the other hand you mean "analyst", you're useless. Like I said, do some proper research instead of making assumptions.

sc999cs

If you need to go on the pavement you get off and push. It is as simple as that.

As for no bike areas on our roads I can name several, the A12 in Mid-Essex (Chelmsford to Brentwood), the A442 in Telford. Only an idiot would want to ride on these roads.

One of the joys of cycling is to find alternative routes. Just because motorists have to travel on a certain road doesn't mean you need to take the same route as a cyclist. Parallel routes are often more pleasant and much nicer to ride.

always_tyred

sc999cs wrote:

If you need to go on the pavement you get off and push. It is as simple as that.

As for no bike areas on our roads I can name several, the A12 in Mid-Essex (Chelmsford to Brentwood), the A442 in Telford. Only an idiot would want to ride on these roads.

One of the joys of cycling is to find alternative routes. Just because motorists have to travel on a certain road doesn't mean you need to take the same route as a cyclist. Parallel routes are often more pleasant and much nicer to ride.

Yup. I seem to spend half my time on Streetmap looking for cut throughs and disused routes. Inevitably, though, there are those late for work times when the most direct route is required. Other than full on dual carriageways (which I avoid unless there's a decent shoulder) it should be possible to cycle on pretty much anything. Its just not preferable.

Just a note for Meanwhile; we all go off on one occasionally and its allowed, but you seem to go off on several more (maybe as many as three or four!) I mean, correcting spelling mistakes? Come on.

Just so you understand (and so, just for a second, pretend that you aren't the cleverest person by far on the forum) the statistics recently quoted will be those collected as a matter of routine at A&E departments.

This adds a degree of quality to them - not a great deal - but it should indicate that a high percentage are not stubbed toes. Indeed, the range and distribution of injuries will most likely reflect those admitted to A&E for all rta's.

No doubt you'll be able to rationalise how those statistics are bowlocks and how anyone who is afraid of getting into an accident that results in admission to A&E is a pussy.

Did I pick up from another thread that you are a cycle courier?

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

Just a note for Meanwhile; we all go off on one occasionally and its allowed, but you seem to go off on several more (maybe as many as three or four!) I mean, correcting spelling mistakes?

If someone talks out of his ass ("ecowarrior" = "riding on pavement") then calls himself an "annalist" then I'm not correcting a spelling mistake; engage sense of humor. As for your general impression: yes, I did give you quite a drubbing for believing silly things on the helmet's thread.

Just so you understand (and so, just for a second, pretend that you aren't the cleverest person by far on the forum) the statistics recently quoted will be those collected as a matter of routine at A&E departments.

They will be, but it doesn't mean that Pavement Warrior is quoting them correctly, let alone with accurate context. To state the very obvious. You can only get to his shock-horror figure - which he uses to justify making a real nuisance of himself, breaking the law, and putting other people's safety at risk - if you do include really trivial injuries. Fear of a cut knee is not adequate justification for skinning two inches past a grannies elbow on the pavement at 15mph, especially not when your bike handling skills are probably low anyway.

Having seen an old lady in Glasgow almost sent to hospital by a clueless idiot riding on the pavement, I feel quite strongly about this issue. Pavements should be safe for old people. They're not, when cowardly self selected idiots treat peds as a video game.

This adds a degree of quality to them - not a great deal - but it should indicate that a high percentage are not stubbed toes. Indeed, the range and distribution of injuries will most likely reflect those admitted to A&E for all rta's.

No: check http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 726?page=5 - it clearly differentiates between serious and trivial injuries. The truth is that cycling is pretty damn safe unless you're an idiot. And if you are an idiot, you should take the consequences on yourself. Of course you can have an idiocy free crash - but they're the exception. Someone like Manc, who by his own admission rides in a state of constant crisis, is just incompetent. He shouldn't be inflicting the risks of his behaviour on pedestrians. He is one of the riders most likely to hurt other people and he's putting himself where he is most likely to do it.

Did I pick up from another thread that you are a cycle courier?

Used to be, a long time ago.

always_tyred

The reason I ask if you are a cycle courier is that you come across as the cycling equivalent of a cabbie (or stereotype thereof).

So - every time I get on my bike, I am afraid of idiot motorists. I like to plan a route on quiet roads. Am I incompetent too?

You know how the people who think that they are the best drivers are the ones you really don't want to get into a car with?

What does your attitude suggest to the rest of us about your cycling, do you think?

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

The reason I ask if you are a cycle courier is that you come across as the cycling equivalent of a cabbie (or stereotype thereof).

Thank you!

So - every time I get on my bike, I am afraid of idiot motorists. I like to plan a route on quiet roads. Am I incompetent too?

You should probably start reading threads before commenting on them. The point here is that Manc stated that he has a near disaster every time he rides, and this is his reason for riding on the pavement. He is the one who rejected my solution of adopting a safer route. So, no, there's nothing in your stated behaviour as a cyclist that I would condemn.

If you have a problem with my telling someone who can't ride safely on the road because of his own incompetence that's unfair for him to transfer the risk to pedestrians... well, I really don't care. I can't imagine why any would. And I don't think that's what you really feel. You're just one of those people who disagrees with someone on one thread, takes a bashing to his ego, and carries baggage with him.

You know how the people who think that they are the best drivers are the ones you really don't want to get into a car with?

No. The best driver I know thinks he's superb. I'm afraid you're one of those people whose brain is trapped in cliches.

What does your attitude suggest to the rest of us about your cycling, do you think?

To you it suggests, "Can apply cliche in attempt to salvage damaged ego!"

As I said in another thread, these days I'm actually damn slow for various reasons. Cycling safely and showing respect for other people's rights is another matter. If you constantly skirt the edge of disaster - as Manc says he does - then learn to ride safely (as others manage, in environments much more hazardous than Manchester) or stop riding. Don't inflict the problem on crowded pavements, riding through crowds containing old people and children at 15mph.

You may now resume trying to save your ego...

always_tyred

"You should probably start reading threads before commenting on them. "

Good god. What self awareness!

I like to think I employ rhetoric, rather than cliches.

As I recall, there was a theme in the thread condemning cycling on pavements. Various people put forward justifications to this behaviour. Amongst these was sympathy for inexperienced cyclists taking to the pavement to avoid tricky stretches of road.

I believe that someone from Manchester suggested that even they had to do this from time to time.

Then someone else had a go at them for careering through crowds of children and old people. I don't quite know where he got the idea that this was in fact occuring. It sounded like he had a traumatic experience earlier in life that was nothing to do with the individual in Manchester.

But I wasn't really following the thread very closely.

dondare

You two have certainly got me confused. You seem to be in agreement but arguing anyway.

always_tyred

Yup. There may be some confusion as to who has said what, and indeed what was meant by that. Bit of skim reading going on I think.

The slamming along crowded pavements thing has me a bit baffled though. Which one of us said they were doing that again?

(The ego thing is projection though )

dondare

The beligerent Andymanc certainly gave the impression that it was something that he might be capable of.

always_tyred

Depends who was on the pavement.

I assumed he was talking figuratively.

Look, riding on pavements is a bad idea. But its really hard to be too unsympathetic about it given the attitude towards cyclists these days.

Late last year, I even had a bus driver deliberately clip me with his mirror, then stop to tell me to get out of his way.

I regularly get people deliberately squeezing me into parked cars.

There are certain roundabout where I can pretty much guarantee that if I try to go straight on, someone will overtake me to turn left. Christ, it even happens when I'm driving, and if you take the other lane, someone will overtake you to go straight on.

In the car, I just press the accelerator harder and its not a problem. Can't do that on a bike.

I know you should get off and walk, but if you are trying to cycle commute and you have to do this every day, I sympathise with the desire to just keep on moving, and bending the rules so to do.

I don't, but I don't have to on the routes I take. As such, I'm not in a position to moralise.

The second issue here is that the anger towards people "kerb hopping" is completely disproportionate, as is the anger towards bending the rules at red lights. Drivers rightly point out that they aren't allowed to do it, so why should we. So I don't.

However, drivers fundamentally resent having to overtake cyclists, particularly when they are in heavy traffic and the cyclist is clearly on the more appropriate vehicle and doesn't have to endure the queue that they are stuck in.

It seems to me that there used to be more tolerance of these indiscretions. You know what, there should be as well. I don't weigh a ton and travel at 30-40mph. The damage I am likely to inflict is to car paintwork and myself, if I do anything stupid.

Yes, there are rare cases of people hitting pedestrians. It is completely unforgivable, but it is extremely rare. If it occurs then someone has made a decision a good deal less advisable than jumping across a quiet junction early, or coasting up to and using a pedestrian crossing on your bike.

AndyManc

I stopped receiving alerts on this thread that has allowed "meanwhile" to spout his usual bullshit and blatant lies.

For example " The point here is that Manc stated that he has a near disaster every time he rides, and this is his reason for riding on the pavement " .... A TOTAL LIE .

If you feel the need to lie to prove a point then you need to examine your motives .

Instruction for cyclists in the highway code have been constructed and are dependant on other road users obeying their rules ... DO THEY ? ... DO THEY ***** .

If you can assure me that motor vehicle users will ,

not speed
not use their mobile phones
overtake cyclist with the margin of a cars width
stop parking on cycle lanes
stop parking on pavements
not drive pissed, unlicensed , drugged
use vehicles not even fit for the scrap yard

then I will consider not riding on the pavement when I feel it's justified.

I find 'meanwhile's' attitude towards cyclists fatalities and injuries disturbing, he’s the only biker that argues their isn't a serious problem despite all the research and anecdotal evidence to prove otherwise.

AndyManc

"sc999cs wrote:
If you need to go on the pavement you get off and push. It is as simple as that.

As for no bike areas on our roads I can name several, the A12 in Mid-Essex (Chelmsford to Brentwood), the A442 in Telford. Only an idiot would want to ride on these roads.

One of the joys of cycling is to find alternative routes. Just because motorists have to travel on a certain road doesn't mean you need to take the same route as a cyclist. Parallel routes are often more pleasant and much nicer to ride."



No it's not as simple as that , another individual that’s accepting it's OK to continue constructing roads where bikers are actively put at risk.

" One of the joys of cycling is to find alternative routes. " , Is it really , when I'm commuting to work I'd expect to reach my destination within minimum time.

Another 12yr old kid near me on his bike victim of a hit and run last week, and here’s a story about an incident a couple of months ago down the road from me .

Motorists drove past dying hit-and-run cyclist
By Sophie Borland
Last Updated: 3:07AM BST 18/04/2008
Motorists drove around a cyclist as he lay dying in the road rather than stopping to help. One car may have run over him, breaking his legs.

Stephen Wills, 55, suffered fatal head injuries when he was knocked off his bike by suspected joyriders in a stolen car in Moss Side, Greater Manchester early on Saturday.

But in the aftermath of the incident, drivers simply swerved around his body and police believe one may have driven over him.

Several minutes passed before one car passenger alerted the emergency services but Mr Wills was dead when an ambulance arrived.

A post mortem examination showed that he died as a result of head injuries but that his legs were also broken.


Perhaps 'meanwhile' the reason I've never been involved in an accident in 40yrs riding bikes on the road ... is not because I'm a crap biker .... but because I've taken whatever measures necessary to avoid the hazards ... maybe just maybe.

always_tyred

Manchester sounds like Glasgow to cycle in.

I know I drone on about Glasgow, but seriously, the levels of aggression just stunned me. I was cycling initially mainly in the north and east of the city centre. Some of the most deprived areas of Europe.

I ended up with an 18 mile commute instead of coming 9 miles directly and I was much happier.

One of the direct routes took me right through Springburn along a dual carriageway with an optional 40mps speed limit. The council plan to put a bike route there. The only space is on the pavement. In the mean time, most cyclists use the pavement for about 2 miles because local bike routes just dump them there andspear off anywhere but towards the city centre where they want to go.

I think that this qualifies as road design that puts one in more danger than if there was no bike routes at all.

spen666

dondare wrote:

A training in Health and Safety does seem to increase one's perception of risk.
...

But apparently not increase the awareness of the illegality of riding on the pavement

or the effect such criminal behaviour has on the perception of all cyclists in the minds of many motorists and pedestrians

It does however seem to increase the perception of "correctness" of the <I'll do whatever I want and sod other people though> attitude

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

Perhaps 'meanwhile' the reason I've never been involved in an accident in 40yrs riding bikes on the road ... is not because I'm a crap biker .... but because I've taken whatever measures necessary to avoid the hazards ... maybe just maybe.

You make cycling sound so stressful that I'm surprised that you've endured it for 40 years.

jedster

AndyManc,

I'm sure we all get infuriated by incompetent and thoughtless driving. Most of us here don't see that that gives us an excuse to extend incompetence and thoughtlessness to our treatment of pedestrians.

By the way, have you read the "Cyclecraft" book I suggested to you? It is really good. If not, I suspect even a cyclsit of your many years of experience would get something out of it.

Cheers,

J

boybiker

Reading some of the posts on here it sounds as if some people have been riding for 40 years and hated every minute of it, I would suggest that if you have been riding for 40 years and are constantly getting yourself killed by motorists then you might need to re-assess your riding style.
Round me the motorists are quite considerate I pedal along quite happily and nobody has tried to kill me so I don't feel the need to ride on the pavement.

Bikerbaboon

I think every one is taking a bit of a polarised view on wether you should or should not ride on the pavement. I think that the majority of the time riding on the road is fine most divers give you space when they pass and you can ride in a defecive position to give you self space should you need it. But there are black spots on our road systems that are just not well desinged that pushes drivers in to nasty situations that gives them way to much to think about and makes the bad drivers worse. One i have near me that i have to pass to get to the MTB trails is a 2 lane roundabout with 3 lanes of traffic going in to it from 4 directions as well as lanes to filter aroud for left turns with out going on to hte roundabout in one of hte roads..... so here i use the underpass as i dont feel safe to ride on that roundabout. once im passed it im back on to the road. Do i hammer it through the under pass no. do i stop when i see an on comeing pedestrian yes. is it breaking the letter of the law more than likely.

spen666

boybiker wrote:

Reading some of the posts on here it sounds as if some people have been riding for 40 years and hated every minute of it, I would suggest that if you have been riding for 40 years and are constantly getting yourself killed by motorists then you might need to re-assess your riding style.
Round me the motorists are quite considerate I pedal along quite happily and nobody has tried to kill me so I don't feel the need to ride on the pavement.

spen666

Bikerbaboon wrote:

I think every one is taking a bit of a polarised view on wether you should or should not ride on the pavement. I think that the majority of the time riding on the road is fine most divers give you space when they pass and you can ride in a defecive position to give you self space should you need it. But there are black spots on our road systems that are just not well desinged that pushes drivers in to nasty situations that gives them way to much to think about and makes the bad drivers worse. One i have near me that i have to pass to get to the MTB trails is a 2 lane roundabout with 3 lanes of traffic going in to it from 4 directions as well as lanes to filter aroud for left turns with out going on to hte roundabout in one of hte roads..... so here i use the underpass as i dont feel safe to ride on that roundabout. once im passed it im back on to the road. Do i hammer it through the under pass no. do i stop when i see an on comeing pedestrian yes. is it breaking the letter of the law more than likely.

It is breaking the law.
Not breaking the letter of the law- simply breaking the law

always_tyred

Yes, Spen, its breaking the law.

The thing about zero tolerance is that it risks putting people off using a bike all together.

always_tyred

Yes, Spen, its breaking the law.

The thing about zero tolerance is that it risks putting people off using a bike altogether.

rhext

I think I'm losing the track of this thread a bit. It was about demonisation of cyclists by the media in the wake of a tragic incident.

It seems to me as if we don't need the media to demonise us, we're more than capable of demonising each other.

biondino

I don't bother much about the Highway Code which consists of a lot of other people's opinions and it seems to me that these people don't get out much.... but I do bother with the law.

Hang on, the Highway Code IS the law, isn't it? Glad motorists don't by and large agree with you.

Perhaps meanwhile can give us his view on the efficacy of wearing a helmet while ploughing through crowded pavements?

This thread is turning into Grand Theft Auto.[/i]

jonginge

biondino wrote:

Hang on, the Highway Code IS the law, isn't it? Glad motorists don't by and large agree with you.

The highway code is s set of rules that every road user should abide by. However, only the mandatory bits (rules tagged with MUST) are law.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070236

spen666

JonGinge wrote:

biondino wrote:

Hang on, the Highway Code IS the law, isn't it? Glad motorists don't by and large agree with you.

The highway code is s set of rules that every road user should abide by. However, only the mandatory bits (rules tagged with MUST) are law.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070236

Absolutely correct.


It is also true that even if the Highway Code says something is law, that doesn't mean it is correct. The Highway Code is exactly that - a code .

The law comes from the relevant Acts of Parliament. Thus if the Highway Code is mistaken on something, it is no defence in law to say you relied on it.

Having said this, I would be a little suprised to find the HC wrong about the law as it has been looked at by so many people, bith civil servants and pressure groups, eg CTC, RAC, AA etc

always_tyred

I think the thread has picked up on the trend in the media of picking on indiscretions by cyclists as though they are equal in magnitude to, no actually far worse than, indiscretions by motorists. Examples are bending the red light and pavement rules, causing disproportionate indignation. In some cases, as we know, it makes motorists feel justified in using their vehicles as weapons, enacting some form of retribution, be that passing closely, driving into people, shouting, spitting, throwing objects from cars.

It seems that this has percolated through the cycling community also, to the extent that there seems to be zero tolerance to people carefully using the pavement to avoid daunting junctions designed without any consideration of cyclists.

I personally don't think its a black and white issue.