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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Spoked Wheels

Legendary Member
Location
Bournemouth
I didn't read the article but I can guess what they are referring to. Everytime I go to London I'm extra careful with cyclists cause some of them are bloody dangerous to anyone. They do zero to win over cyclist haters IMO.
 
Disgusting journalism, the "survey" is just people responding after they've been asked if they have strong views! You may as well have a headline claiming you can get red hot sex on the top deck of the number eighteen bus because some bod phoned up and claimed it.

Now the Mail have gotten all excited and hysterical and are claiming forty two per cent of blind people have been hit by people on bikes, this is total made-up toilet otters, crappy hate-mongering by a dishonest charity and lazy journalists.

"CYCLISTS, EVER SEEN A MAD BMW DRIVER?"

Arthur Spiggot of Hackney: "Yes"

BMW DRIVERS MAD, CLAIM CYCLISTS!!!
 

John the Monkey

Frivolous Cyclist
Location
Crewe
I didn't read the article but I can guess what they are referring to. Everytime I go to London I'm extra careful with cyclists cause some of them are bloody dangerous to anyone. They do zero to win over cyclist haters IMO.
On that basis, you're eminently qualified to report on it for the press/media outlet of your choice, I reckon.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
I don't think anyone is defending crap cycling, they're just defending us from the generalisation that 'cyclists' as a whole are terrorising blind people.

Yesterday I witnessed a pedestrian angrily demand a cyclists to ride on the road, there was lots of room and the passing cyclist, a young woman on a hybrid was riding about 12mph, about the speed of a jogger, and the path was shared space, it looked like a path, it didn't have any special surface but there were blue signs indicating that it's a cycling route. How much of this kind of misguided outrage is happening, not because of any actual incident but because they don't understand the infrastructure? Is the infrastructure at fault, leading to conflicts? Are the right questions being asked?
This different survey popped up on my Facebook feed today http://info.uwe.ac.uk/news/uwenews/news.aspx?id=2918

The survey was about whether cyclists/pedestrians have annoying interactions on cycle paths though it did go on to say that most didn't think it would be solved by having the paths entirely separated.
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
I don't think anyone is defending crap cycling, they're just defending us from the generalisation that 'cyclists' as a whole are terrorising blind people.

Yesterday I witnessed a pedestrian angrily demand a cyclists to ride on the road, there was lots of room and the passing cyclist, a young woman on a hybrid was riding about 12mph, about the speed of a jogger, and the path was shared space, it looked like a path, it didn't have any special surface but there were blue signs indicating that it's a cycling route. How much of this kind of misguided outrage is happening, not because of any actual incident but because they don't understand the infrastructure? Is the infrastructure at fault, leading to conflicts? Are the right questions being asked?

I've had people get angry a couple of times on shared paths. One recent was a dog walker (who's dog went for me after I politely rang the bell and alerted him "passing on your left").

Another about a year back (actually a dog walker but dog under control). Me: "passing on your left mate.." (He was walking on the right of the path). Him: "there is a (Expletive deleted) road there!" Me: "I didnt mean to upset you, the blue signs are right behind you" and pointed at them. Thing is this one was right next to what many riders consider an urban motorway.

People are characters aint they.
 

Ganymede

Veteran
Location
Rural Kent
A few facts about Guide Dogs for the Blind. Only some blind people use guide dogs, and there are far fewer blind people than there used to be due to the management of childhood illnesses and conditions of the ageing eye. For many years, other blind charities couldn't stand GDB because they could get all the money by waving pics of sweet golden labradors, whereas people creating talking newspapers for example, used by a large percentage of blind people, found it very hard to raise money (I know this from direct experience).

GDB has started to diversify, and the actual number of guide dogs it provides is not made clear in its accounts, where they come under the category of "guide dogs and other mobility aids: £44m". They appear to have started to "spend down" the vast capital that they had accrued, which is a good thing, as is the diversity, although it seems that it can't handle diversifying into campaigning without cokking it up.

I note also that they raise £66m annually. They spend well over £20m - about £22m I think - raising that amount and employ well over 1000 people. There are 360,000 registered blind people in the UK (though up to 2m people living with some sight loss).

I hasten to add, I understand that charities need to spend money on amin - I am the first to defend it - and the blind need help, it must be nightmarish to be blind - but frankly I think the charity is a bit of a dinosaur.
 
Road.cc have a new article - I think they're just a little annoyed by yesterdays report
Anatomy of a lie: How Guide Dogs London fabricated an attack on cyclists
Now that REALLY hacks me off - given the number of times installation of cycling infrastructure is blocked/resisted by disability groups.

Fair dos - there is no reason on earth why the visually impaired, hard of hearing, or anybody else for that matter, should be/feel threatened by some of the louts on pavements. But that's no reason to fire up misplaced resentment.
 

John the Monkey

Frivolous Cyclist
Location
Crewe
Ah, a completely justified tribal defense (sic), how refreshing. Anyone feel like apologising for making hasty judgements then?
You're going to see this stat popping up all over the place as well, I reckon. Newspaper columnists will get (more) lazy copy out of it for bloody years.
 
Hmmm - http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/cycleyes#.U_-UVsVdWSo

Includes link to a Youtube video. BUT ........ "This video is private" (The caption below is ... "unfortunate", in the circumstamce ... "We're calling on everyone to use their eyes ......" --- I know, I shouldn't smirk. But I am :smile:)

Sorry - but it reads of somebody who really hasn't thought out the issues and is just jumping on a Daily Wail bandwagon. Pity.

Had a look at this linky again - substantially reworded, some of it for the better. But there's still stuff that's ...... questionable?
 
Last edited:

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
You're going to see this stat popping up all over the place as well, I reckon. Newspaper columnists will get (more) lazy copy out of it for bloody years.
The IAM "55% of cyclists run red lights" "stat" still pops up from time to time. Both in articles and letters to publications
 

John the Monkey

Frivolous Cyclist
Location
Crewe
... Both in articles and letters to publications

...out of car windows, down the pub...

As well as the obvious stuff, it will contribute to the hostile zeitgeist towards cycling in the UK, probably meaning that people will feel less bad about taking a chance on an iffy overtake, parking in bike lanes, &c &c.

It's *really* irresponsible of the charity to launch (what looks like a fairly sensible campaign, at least, the bits on how to ride around the visually impaired look useful) like this.
 
Top Bottom