Guide dog owners 'fearful' of cyclists in London, charity claims

[cd365]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28945834

Some bad press for the pavement cyclists and red light jumpers in London.

 

[Archie_tect]

70% of the 20% asked out of the 320 guide dog owners had had some sort of incident, at some point in their lives, with a cyclist... that's 46 people in their lifetimes... how many had had an issue with a vehicle or another pedestrian? This is sensationalist journalism at its worst. But, I agree some cyclists need to be more aware, be more courteous and have more sense.

 

[0lonerider]

thats shocking! if yi have to ride paths ride slow and take care n use ya eyes and bell! theres no excuse for jumpin red lites though!

 

[Drago]

I do have sympathy with the guide dog campaign as my wife is partially sighted. Their advice is cyclists should dismount on the footpath is perhaps common sense, but not compelling in the legal sense.

A footpath beside a road, or a footway, is a no no and must not be cycled upon, unless it is specifically designated as such.

Footpaths that are not alongside a road, such as those that criss cross many housing estates, are not covered by any laws that prevent cycling. Unless there is a local authority by law preventing it, then a rider commits no offence by cycling on these. A lot of people - and most reporters - don't know this, and many of the articles are written without basis in law or truth.

 

[Archie_tect]

Deaf and partially deaf people have similar problems with people approaching behind them- every pedestrian should be able to expect to be safe on a pavement adjoining a road free from cyclists.

 

[sidevalve]

I do have sympathy with the guide dog campaign as my wife is partially sighted. Their advice is cyclists should dismount on the footpath is perhaps common sense, but not compelling in the legal sense.

A footpath beside a road, or a footway, is a no no and must not be cycled upon, unless it is specifically designated as such.

Footpaths that are not alongside a road, such as those that criss cross many housing estates, are not covered by any laws that prevent cycling. Unless there is a local authority by law preventing it, then a rider commits no offence by cycling on these. A lot of people - and most reporters - don't know this, and many of the articles are written without basis in law or truth.

Despite this fact the cycle is STILL the vehicle in this situation and should be prepared to give way to the pedestrian. People expect to be able to walk in safety in the situations and that includes mothers and prams, small children and the elderly [and that also includes the deaf, partially sighted and disabled]. For a grown adult to ride these paths and assume any sort of right of way is arrogance of the worst kind.

 

[Mile195]

I'd like to think that the cyclists that those surveyed have had run-ins with are probably "yoofs" with their mates sat on the handlebars of their stolen bikes, smoking a joint while looking for their next mugging target who are a problem for everyone. I see plenty of those round London. And while they are still cyclists of a sort, the way the article is written lumps them in with more responsible types.

In any case, there's rarely a reason to get on the pavement if it's not a shared use path, and if there is a good reason there's never an excuse for doing it at little more than a walking pace. I've got every sympathy for the partially sighted having to deal with such behaviour - It can't be easy getting around even without having to worry about stuff like that.

 

[DaveReading]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28945834

 

[Saluki]

I think that the BBC are becoming an organisation of bike haters.
Yesterday on the Jeremy Vine show they were talking about an incident where a couple of surfboards fell off a moving car and caused an accident that hospitalised 6 people. That was very quickly turned by JV into bikes being unsafe loads on cars and how they fall off and cause accidents.
BBC saying the cyclists cause problems and now roping in another charity organisation other than RoSPa, really doesn't surprise me.

 

[wiggydiggy]

This is news? Blind and partially sighted people being afraid of traffic?

 

[screenman]

You should see what caravan's owners think of us.

http://www.caravantalk.co.uk/community/topic/98963-cyclists-cut-the-green-wire/

 

[the_mikey]

Hardy surprising, often the pavement is a cycle path too thanks to those little blue signs loved by councils across the country. I don't think the BBC are helping with overly simple reporting, maybe they need to identify where these problems are actually occurring and why, rather than throwing the bucket of poo at cyclists.

The report is quite open to interpretation and offers no specific details, we don't know what the truth is, but generalisations about any group of road users is unhelpful.

 

[screenman]

In my mind a yob on a bike is not a cyclist. They are just a yob.

 

[growingvegetables]

Hmm - Guide Dogs for the Blind don't have a press release on their site on this subject. So I wonder about the sourcing of the story?

However - GDB have plenty of press releases on pavement parking, electric and hybrid vehicles ... and these have been reported by the BBC.

Interesting gap in BBC cpverage though - Guide Dogs for the Blind calling for disability awareness training for bus drivers.

 

[IDMark2]

According to a tweet by Mark Treasure of 'As easy as riding a bike' blog:
320 people with guide dogs in London > 1/5th surveyed > 1/4 of whom say have suffered a collision = *16 people*. Over how many years?