Main letter in local rag.

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Pete Biggs <> wrote:
> Simon Mason wrote:
> > In response to day after day comments about pavement cyclists in local
> > letters page.
> >
> > http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>
> Is it really that much worse in Hull than where I am in the south
> east? Or are /you/ doing something not well?

I don't think it's Hull v. the south east, so much as individual roads
encourage particular behaviours.

My office relocated 3 miles recently (ish), so my daily commute
changed from 6 miles west to 6 miles west-north-west. So, I'm heading
from the same place in a very similar direction at the same time. The
roads are similar (minor A-road, single carriageway, through small
town and nearly rural commuter-belt Surrey).

On the old route I had near-miss requiring evasive action on my part
about once every 4 to 6 weeks. On the new commute, I have motorists
scaring me about two or three times a journey. I don't believe my
riding style changed overnight.

A year ago I'd have agreed with you, but now I don't - it seems some
roads just encourage drivers to do recklessly stupid things, and it's
the cyclist that suffers. Two notionally similar roads in the same
area can have very different characters, and if you're stuck with
roads where motorists do stupid things, it can be very hair-raising.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Pete Biggs]

Barb wrote:
> Exactly my point - *some* road situations are really not viable for
> your average jobbing cyclist, and the only way to bypass a "bad bit"
> safely is on the pavement. I consider myself a good and experienced
> driver, but I wouldn't dare do some urban dual carriageways in rush
> hour on a bike, and am often surprised to see an intrepid cyclist
> attempting it.

Are you sure these urban dual carriageways are actually any more dangerous
than average urban main roads, for example? Speeds may be higher, but the
number of junctions and other hazzards per mile will be lower. You have to
balance these things.

Personally, I've cycled on every type of road that it's legally possible to
cycle on in the UK (plus a few that aren't) and the only ones I don't feels
safe on are the fastest dual carriageways (70 mph limit) with
narrower-than-usual lanes. And then I don't know if it's just my /feeling/
that they are more dangerous on balance than any other type road, or actual
fact.

Anyway, we are finding specific exceptions, whereas Simon's letter was
general, re-enforcing the idea that road cycling is generally dangerous.

You can defend pavement cycling in certain cases, but isn't it more
important to concentrate on encouraging road cycling?

~PB

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:59:30 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Personally, I've cycled on every type of road that it's legally possible to
>cycle on in the UK (plus a few that aren't) and the only ones I don't feels
>safe on are the fastest dual carriageways (70 mph limit) with
>narrower-than-usual lanes. And then I don't know if it's just my /feeling/
>that they are more dangerous on balance than any other type road, or actual
>fact.

The worst sections of roads I have cycled along are:
1. A74 Carlisle to Gretna
2. A27 Portsmouth to Emsworth (the section past the A3(M) slip road
was particularly memorable)
3. A102 Blackwall Tunnel approach road during the period between it
being downgraded from a motorway and bicycles being banned.

None of these roads have footways, though both the A102 and A27 have a
hard shoulder. The A74 has no hard shoulder for a substantial
section.

The A102 has excellent alternative routes and the A27 a very pleasant
and quite fast tarmac off road cycle track. There is no viable
alternative to the A74 for the journey Carlisle to Gretna.

 

[Simon Mason]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Pete Biggs <> wrote:

>
> On the old route I had near-miss requiring evasive action on my part
> about once every 4 to 6 weeks. On the new commute, I have motorists
> scaring me about two or three times a journey. I don't believe my
> riding style changed overnight.

I usually average at least one of these incidents per journey. The classic
is the driver heading towards you who wants to turn to his/her right. You
can see them coming a mile off. One last week even had a go at me for
pulling up as he headed directly towards me. Apparently I was holding him up
as I should have kept going, but then again, I've no idea if he saw me or
not, so I've got to bail out.

I think most drivers don't expect confident assertive riders on "their" city
roads, London excepted. Most riders around here are simply going from A-B on
pavements cum roads, through red lights etc and a rider who takes the lane
and indicates right on a busy 40 mph dual carriageway full of tankers is to
them someone who has a screw loose, especially if there is a cycle path next
to the road. He deserves the full horn and finger pointing caper.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[Pete Biggs]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Pete Biggs <> wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> In response to day after day comments about pavement cyclists in
>>> local letters page.
>>>
>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>>
>> Is it really that much worse in Hull than where I am in the south
>> east? Or are /you/ doing something not well?
>
> I don't think it's Hull v. the south east, so much as individual roads
> encourage particular behaviours.
>
> My office relocated 3 miles recently (ish), so my daily commute
> changed from 6 miles west to 6 miles west-north-west. So, I'm heading
> from the same place in a very similar direction at the same time. The
> roads are similar (minor A-road, single carriageway, through small
> town and nearly rural commuter-belt Surrey).
>
> On the old route I had near-miss requiring evasive action on my part
> about once every 4 to 6 weeks. On the new commute, I have motorists
> scaring me about two or three times a journey. I don't believe my
> riding style changed overnight.

If these evasions are necessary, I susect your style isn't good enough for
the new route, and could be better.

> A year ago I'd have agreed with you, but now I don't - it seems some
> roads just encourage drivers to do recklessly stupid things, and it's
> the cyclist that suffers. Two notionally similar roads in the same
> area can have very different characters, and if you're stuck with
> roads where motorists do stupid things, it can be very hair-raising.

Since I was a beginner, I've never had *frequent* scares requiring evasive
action on any of the many various roads I've cycled on, with various types
and amounts of traffic.

Bearing in mind that for many of my rides I like to find new roads of all
sorts to cycle on just for the sake of going somewhere different, I couldn't
have been that lucky all my life where I've happened to only cycle on
relatively safe roads.

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

Simon Mason wrote:

> I think most drivers don't expect confident assertive riders on
> "their" city roads, London excepted.

*Inner* London, that is. There aren't that many people regularly cycling in
the rest of London and surrounding areas.

~PB

 

[Nigel Randell]

marc wrote:
> Barb wrote:
>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected]eversed says...
>>>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>>>>> Well done Simon. I think you hit the Mail errr nail on the head.
>>>>>
>>>> Well if nothing else it should put people off taking up cycling. Who
>>>> wants to take up an activity that exposes you to "a
>>>> potentially deadly collision" every day?
>>>
>>> I only tell it like it is Tony. I could have been killed 10 times
>>> over had I not had my wits about me, although not everyone's
>>> commute involves mixing it with dozens of HGVs on busy docks roads
>>> in driving rain, I'm glad to say. My point was that a collision on
>>> the road between a car and a cyclist can often be "deadly", whereas
>>> a collision between a ped and cyclist is very rarely so.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Simon Mason
>>> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
>>>
>>
>> As a - dare I admit it - habitual pavement cylist in certain places
>> (huge multi-lane roundabout type of thing), I am always aware that I
>> shouldn't really be there, and go very slowly and stop for people,
>> pushchairs etc. getting past. I try to stay very aware of small
>> children, dogs, greytops etc....I always make a point of making eye
>> contact and saying thank you when anyone stands back for me.
>>
>> The biggest problem, I think, with pavement cyclists is these kids
>> who dodge about like fighter aircraft at 15 mph, even round corners
>> when they can't possible see anyone coming. These little b****ers
>> are lethal,
>
> No they aren't,the incidence of deaths from pavemtn cyclits is so
> close to zero as to be zero.That makes them non-lethal.

Until they take the same attitude behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

We need to get away from the mindset which says that bad cycling, by anyone,
is OK because it causes little or no harm and recognise that an idiot PoB is
likely to also be an idiot when driving a car.

On the other hand it's my opinion that the growth of shared use facilities
(which used to be pavements for peds) and the ubiquity of "off road" bikes
has led to a genuine ignorance of where it's OK to ride and where it's not.

--

Nigel

 

[Andy Morris]

Simon Mason wrote:
> In response to day after day comments about pavement cyclists in local
> letters page.
>
>
> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>
>

I think I'd rather you hadn't bothered, by putting such emphasis on your
perception of danger you've let the Daily Mail repeat the standard
petrol head line of 'get off the roads onto facilities'.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Andy Morris]

Simon Mason wrote:
>
> I think most drivers don't expect confident assertive riders on "their" city
> roads, London excepted. Most riders around here are simply going from A-B on
> pavements cum roads, through red lights etc and a rider who takes the lane
> and indicates right on a busy 40 mph dual carriageway full of tankers is to
> them someone who has a screw loose, especially if there is a cycle path next
> to the road. He deserves the full horn and finger pointing caper.
>

If they are swearing at you, they have seen you, they are not likely to
hit you.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> "Barb" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>As a - dare I admit it - habitual pavement cylist in certain places (huge
>>multi-lane roundabout type of thing), I am always aware that I shouldn't
>>really be there, and go very slowly and stop for people, pushchairs etc.
>>getting past. I try to stay very aware of small children, dogs, greytops
>>etc....I always make a point of making eye contact and saying thank you when
>>anyone stands back for me.

> I'm not sure that what you are doing is illegal.

> Home Office Guidance:

> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible
> cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of
> traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing
> so."

> In other words, if issued with a fixed penalty ticket for pavement
> cycling you would stand an excellent chance of having it withdrawn on
> appeal if you could show that:
> 1. You were using the pavement out of fear of traffic, and
> 2. You were showing consideration for other pavement users.

There's a distinction between not being issued with a penalty notice
and not doing anything illegal.

Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social, whether or not a
penalty notice is issued and irrespective of what the ticket-issuing
officers' guidance says.

 

[Nige Danton]

On Sep 29, 10:16 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> That may be how you and others perceive it but given the very small
> numbers of deaths and injuries, either everybody is very very lucky to
> avoid them all or else in reality its nowhere near as dangerous as you
> present.
>
> As long as we keep promoting cycling as an extreme death wish activity
> we will never persuade more people to take it up. The reality is that
> cycling is very very safe, as safe as walking, not a daily suicide
> mission.

Yup, perhaps part of the problem is the perception of non or
occasional cyclists view of the traffic from the pavement opposed to
the entirely different view when part of the traffic on our bikes.
Until recently I commuted to work in Shanghai (28km each way) and was
frequently asked by collegues why I did it and that surely it was far
too dangerous. Of course cycle commuters have to pay attention to what
they are doing and to take sensible precautions, but it's not too
dangerous at all. I offered to accompany a few of them for a ride in
to work, but without exception they declined.

--
Nige Danton

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Pete Biggs" <[email protected]>typed


> Simon Mason wrote:

> > I think most drivers don't expect confident assertive riders on
> > "their" city roads, London excepted.

> *Inner* London, that is. There aren't that many people regularly
> cycling in
> the rest of London and surrounding areas.

> ~PB


Too true. I was the just about last woman to cycle up my street when I
gave up cycling >5 years ago.

There are a few lads and men on the pavement and the occasional man on
the road. My partner has cycled on London streets for over 20 years but
he finds the local environment threatening for cyclists.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Nick]

JNugent wrote:

> Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social,



Why? There are a lot of shared use paths. We all have to live together
and a little give and take from responsible people doesn't seem to be a
problem.

What is antisocial is dangerous riding or driving. While this behaviour
is sometimes seen in pavement cyclists it is very common in cars on the
road. Particularly the type of self righteous driver who feels they own
the road and likes to intimidate slower more vulnerable road users.


whether or not a
> penalty notice is issued and irrespective of what the ticket-issuing
> officers' guidance says.

 

[Nick]

Nigel Randell wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Barb wrote:
>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected]eversed says...
>>>>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>>>>>> Well done Simon. I think you hit the Mail errr nail on the head.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well if nothing else it should put people off taking up cycling. Who
>>>>> wants to take up an activity that exposes you to "a
>>>>> potentially deadly collision" every day?
>>>> I only tell it like it is Tony. I could have been killed 10 times
>>>> over had I not had my wits about me, although not everyone's
>>>> commute involves mixing it with dozens of HGVs on busy docks roads
>>>> in driving rain, I'm glad to say. My point was that a collision on
>>>> the road between a car and a cyclist can often be "deadly", whereas
>>>> a collision between a ped and cyclist is very rarely so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
>>>>
>>> As a - dare I admit it - habitual pavement cylist in certain places
>>> (huge multi-lane roundabout type of thing), I am always aware that I
>>> shouldn't really be there, and go very slowly and stop for people,
>>> pushchairs etc. getting past. I try to stay very aware of small
>>> children, dogs, greytops etc....I always make a point of making eye
>>> contact and saying thank you when anyone stands back for me.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem, I think, with pavement cyclists is these kids
>>> who dodge about like fighter aircraft at 15 mph, even round corners
>>> when they can't possible see anyone coming. These little b****ers
>>> are lethal,
>> No they aren't,the incidence of deaths from pavemtn cyclits is so
>> close to zero as to be zero.That makes them non-lethal.
>
> Until they take the same attitude behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
>

A curious comment? Do you really think that pavement cycling encourages
car drivers to drive on the pavement?

> We need to get away from the mindset which says that bad cycling, by anyone,
> is OK because it causes little or no harm and recognise that an idiot PoB is
> likely to also be an idiot when driving a car.
>

You seem to be assuming that all pavement cycling is bad cycling?

> On the other hand it's my opinion that the growth of shared use facilities
> (which used to be pavements for peds) and the ubiquity of "off road" bikes
> has led to a genuine ignorance of where it's OK to ride and where it's not.
>

 

[Don Whybrow]

Nick wrote:
> Nigel Randell wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> Barb wrote:
>>>> These little b****ers are lethal,
>>> No they aren't,the incidence of deaths from pavemtn cyclits is so
>>> close to zero as to be zero.That makes them non-lethal.
>>
>> Until they take the same attitude behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
>>
>
> A curious comment? Do you really think that pavement cycling encourages
> car drivers to drive on the pavement?

About 4 minutes prior Nick also wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>
>> Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social,
>
> Why? There are a lot of shared use paths. We all have to live together
> and a little give and take from responsible people doesn't seem to be a
> problem.
>
> What is antisocial is dangerous riding or driving. While this behaviour
> is sometimes seen in pavement cyclists it is very common in cars on the
> road. Particularly the type of self righteous driver who feels they own
> the road and likes to intimidate slower more vulnerable road users.

Somehow I have a feeling that Nigel was referring to the *attitude* of
antisocial and self righteous behavior you comment on as opposed to the
*action* of riding/driving on the pavement.



--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"The war isn't the war between the blacks and the whites, the
liberals and the conservatives, or the Federation and the
Romulans. It's between the clueful and the clueless." (an
anonymous poster on cypherpunks list)

 

[marc]

Nigel Randell wrote:
> marc wrote:
>> Barb wrote:
>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> [email protected]eversed says...
>>>>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>>>>>> Well done Simon. I think you hit the Mail errr nail on the head.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Well if nothing else it should put people off taking up cycling. Who
>>>>> wants to take up an activity that exposes you to "a
>>>>> potentially deadly collision" every day?
>>>> I only tell it like it is Tony. I could have been killed 10 times
>>>> over had I not had my wits about me, although not everyone's
>>>> commute involves mixing it with dozens of HGVs on busy docks roads
>>>> in driving rain, I'm glad to say. My point was that a collision on
>>>> the road between a car and a cyclist can often be "deadly", whereas
>>>> a collision between a ped and cyclist is very rarely so.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Simon Mason
>>>> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
>>>>
>>> As a - dare I admit it - habitual pavement cylist in certain places
>>> (huge multi-lane roundabout type of thing), I am always aware that I
>>> shouldn't really be there, and go very slowly and stop for people,
>>> pushchairs etc. getting past. I try to stay very aware of small
>>> children, dogs, greytops etc....I always make a point of making eye
>>> contact and saying thank you when anyone stands back for me.
>>>
>>> The biggest problem, I think, with pavement cyclists is these kids
>>> who dodge about like fighter aircraft at 15 mph, even round corners
>>> when they can't possible see anyone coming. These little b****ers
>>> are lethal,
>> No they aren't,the incidence of deaths from pavemtn cyclits is so
>> close to zero as to be zero.That makes them non-lethal.
>
> Until they take the same attitude behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
>
> We need to get away from the mindset which says that bad cycling, by anyone,
> is OK because it causes little or no harm and recognise that an idiot PoB is
> likely to also be an idiot when driving a car.
>

There was no such mindset in place in my post. A statment was made that
"These little b****ers are lethal," I was pointing out that the numbers
do not support that statement.

 

[Adam Lea]

On 30 Sep, 08:23, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nigel Randell wrote:
> > marc wrote:
> >> Barb wrote:
> >>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> [email protected] says...
> >>>>>> "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>>>>>>http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
> >>>>>> Well done Simon. I think you hit the Mail errr nail on the head.
>
> >>>>> Well if nothing else it should put people off taking up cycling. Who
> >>>>> wants to take up an activity that exposes you to "a
> >>>>> potentially deadly collision" every day?
> >>>> I only tell it like it is Tony. I could have been killed 10 times
> >>>> over had I not had my wits about me, although not everyone's
> >>>> commute involves mixing it with dozens of HGVs on busy docks roads
> >>>> in driving rain, I'm glad to say. My point was that a collision on
> >>>> the road between a car and a cyclist can often be "deadly", whereas
> >>>> a collision between a ped and cyclist is very rarely so.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Simon Mason
> >>>>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
>
> >>> As a - dare I admit it - habitual pavement cylist in certain places
> >>> (huge multi-lane roundabout type of thing), I am always aware that I
> >>> shouldn't really be there, and go very slowly and stop for people,
> >>> pushchairs etc. getting past. I try to stay very aware of small
> >>> children, dogs, greytops etc....I always make a point of making eye
> >>> contact and saying thank you when anyone stands back for me.
>
> >>> The biggest problem, I think, with pavement cyclists is these kids
> >>> who dodge about like fighter aircraft at 15 mph, even round corners
> >>> when they can't possible see anyone coming. These little b****ers
> >>> are lethal,
> >> No they aren't,the incidence of deaths from pavemtn cyclits is so
> >> close to zero as to be zero.That makes them non-lethal.
>
> > Until they take the same attitude behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
>
> A curious comment? Do you really think that pavement cycling encourages
> car drivers to drive on the pavement?
>
> > We need to get away from the mindset which says that bad cycling, by anyone,
> > is OK because it causes little or no harm and recognise that an idiot PoB is
> > likely to also be an idiot when driving a car.
>
> You seem to be assuming that all pavement cycling is bad cycling?
>

It is when it damages the reputation of responsible cyclists and
results in motorists acting with more aggression towards cyclists in
general.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:32:22 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30 Sep, 08:23, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You seem to be assuming that all pavement cycling is bad cycling?
>
> It is when it damages the reputation of responsible cyclists

Err, I think you're saying all pavement cycling is always bad cycling,
sometimes?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Mason]

"Andy Morris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> In response to day after day comments about pavement cyclists in local
>> letters page.
>>
>>
>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zletter.jpg
>>
>>
>
> I think I'd rather you hadn't bothered, by putting such emphasis on your
> perception of danger you've let the Daily Mail repeat the standard petrol
> head line of 'get off the roads onto facilities'.

Well, it *was* supposed to be an antidote to the dozens of "get off the
pavements onto the road" letters. To be fair to the paper though, they are
pro cyclist as can be seen by this recent editorial.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zedit.jpg

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

 

[JNugent]

Nick wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> Cycling on the footway is illegal and anti-social,

> Why?

Because it's... er... against the law.
<eyes cast upward to Heaven>

> There are a lot of shared use paths.

They are not footways within the meaning of what was described. No-one
was under the illusion that "shared paths" were what was being
described in the OP in this thread. It was ordinary, plain vanilla,
pedestrians-for-the-use-of, footways, such as most people have outside
their front doors or garden gates.

> We all have to live together
> and a little give and take from responsible people doesn't seem to be a
> problem.

> What is antisocial is dangerous riding or driving.

Those too. But they are certainly not the only thing that is
anti-social. Cycling along the footway is very anti-social (says I,
principally as a pedestrian, but also as a motorised footway-crosser
at the entrance to my driveway).

> While this behaviour
> is sometimes seen in pavement cyclists it is very common in cars on the
> road.

Done to death, I'm afraid, here and elsewhere. When I see a car being
driven at normal speed along a footway (ie, not for anything other
than crossing it or a slow manoeuvre involved in parking), I'll give
you a shout. Don't hold your breath (and no, I don't want a debate on
it - you know I'm telling the truth).

> Particularly the type of self righteous driver who feels they own
> the road and likes to intimidate slower more vulnerable road users.

I am a pedestrian most of the time. I feel intimidated by illegal
cycling in "my" space. I see no reason why I or anyone else should put
up with it. It is a deliberate and cynical shifting of risk onto those
who don't deserve it. Try seeing it from the pedestrian's POV.