PedallingNowhereSlowly
Über Member
I walk on average ~50 km a week. This is across a range of routes involving footways, footpaths, cycleways (shared use tracks with the painted line down the middle and footpaths cyclists have been permitted to ride on), bridleways and canal tow paths.
As the weather has warmed up, I'm coming into contact with more cyclists, more e-bike cyclists and a handful of e-scooter riders who are riding on the footways and footpaths. Most are considerate and that's fine.
I'm finding there is a definite issue with some of the e-bike riders who are both faster than regular pavement cyclists and either less experienced or less responsible or both. And that has resulted in a few issues. I'm speaking as an fan of e-bikes - I'd love an e-cargo bike for taking the dog further afield and to visit the local AONB.
Recently, on a dog walk, I was almost involved in a collision. Sorry, the dog (on a short lead) was almost involved in a collision.
This is not the first or the most recent occasion on which I have experienced conflict like this with an e-bike rider. These last few weeks I've been caught out a few times on routes that don't afford such good visibility.
A lot of the locals have been making vociferous complaints about cyclists on social media. A lot of this is in response to spending on active travel. Some of the complaints have related quite specific stories which I was happy to think were statistical anomolies. I was also happy to think that the generalisations being largely confirmation bias. Recent experiences as a pedestrian are starting to challenge my thinking.
I'm thinking about contacting my local MP about the issue. Trouble is, I don't want the problem to be conflated and I don't want e-bike riders that are considerate and responsible to be penalised. If something isn't done, I'd wager that the PSPO the LA have applied to the area will be made even more restrictive towards cycling when it is renewed. 'Bicycles' are already banned from the pedestrian area in the town centre with no concessions. Yet there are concessions for motorised vehicles for loading/unloading.
What are your thoughts?
As the weather has warmed up, I'm coming into contact with more cyclists, more e-bike cyclists and a handful of e-scooter riders who are riding on the footways and footpaths. Most are considerate and that's fine.
I'm finding there is a definite issue with some of the e-bike riders who are both faster than regular pavement cyclists and either less experienced or less responsible or both. And that has resulted in a few issues. I'm speaking as an fan of e-bikes - I'd love an e-cargo bike for taking the dog further afield and to visit the local AONB.
Recently, on a dog walk, I was almost involved in a collision. Sorry, the dog (on a short lead) was almost involved in a collision.
I had stopped on the footway to cross a side road. Just before we stopped, I looked behind me back at the footway and noticed an e-bike rider advancing fairly quickly - just shy of 90 meters away and travelling up a gradient that reaches 1:10 in places.
The dog and I stood well away from the dropped kerb to allow the rider to pass safely without drawing us into conflict. My attention was focussed on the dog and the motorised traffic. The dog had sat at the kerbside as he is trained to - I made my observations and gave him the command 'okay' which means proceed. The dog proceded and I followed - with the e-bike rider veering straight across our path a fraction of a second later. I had positioned us far enough away from the dropped kerb for him to proceed and cross the road from pavement to pavement in a straight line without coming within at least a metre of us.
I could and probably should have looked again for the position of the e-bike rider before I gave the dog the command and stepped into the road. That would have avoided this situation and saved my heels/arm/back in stopping and pulling the dog back. And I will next time.
I think part of the problem might be the speed the e-bike was travelling at. This distance is checked on a map. When I saw the e-bike rider he was actually emerging from a section of footway that is carried by a bridge making measurment easy. It's 100m but I've knocked it down to 90m in making allowances. At 25 km/h, 6.94 meters are covered every second. This rider should have taken 12.96 seconds to reach us. I've just checked the GPS data from the walk and it looks like we were stopped for 7 seconds - and it was a couple of paces before we stopped that I looked behind us. So if we are being genours we could call it 9 seconds. 90 meters in 9 seconds is 9 meters covered every second and that equates to 36 km/h. Is that realistic for a de-restricted e-bike up a hill? It is the only way I can see any of this makes sense.
The dog and I stood well away from the dropped kerb to allow the rider to pass safely without drawing us into conflict. My attention was focussed on the dog and the motorised traffic. The dog had sat at the kerbside as he is trained to - I made my observations and gave him the command 'okay' which means proceed. The dog proceded and I followed - with the e-bike rider veering straight across our path a fraction of a second later. I had positioned us far enough away from the dropped kerb for him to proceed and cross the road from pavement to pavement in a straight line without coming within at least a metre of us.
I could and probably should have looked again for the position of the e-bike rider before I gave the dog the command and stepped into the road. That would have avoided this situation and saved my heels/arm/back in stopping and pulling the dog back. And I will next time.
I think part of the problem might be the speed the e-bike was travelling at. This distance is checked on a map. When I saw the e-bike rider he was actually emerging from a section of footway that is carried by a bridge making measurment easy. It's 100m but I've knocked it down to 90m in making allowances. At 25 km/h, 6.94 meters are covered every second. This rider should have taken 12.96 seconds to reach us. I've just checked the GPS data from the walk and it looks like we were stopped for 7 seconds - and it was a couple of paces before we stopped that I looked behind us. So if we are being genours we could call it 9 seconds. 90 meters in 9 seconds is 9 meters covered every second and that equates to 36 km/h. Is that realistic for a de-restricted e-bike up a hill? It is the only way I can see any of this makes sense.
This is not the first or the most recent occasion on which I have experienced conflict like this with an e-bike rider. These last few weeks I've been caught out a few times on routes that don't afford such good visibility.
A lot of the locals have been making vociferous complaints about cyclists on social media. A lot of this is in response to spending on active travel. Some of the complaints have related quite specific stories which I was happy to think were statistical anomolies. I was also happy to think that the generalisations being largely confirmation bias. Recent experiences as a pedestrian are starting to challenge my thinking.
I'm thinking about contacting my local MP about the issue. Trouble is, I don't want the problem to be conflated and I don't want e-bike riders that are considerate and responsible to be penalised. If something isn't done, I'd wager that the PSPO the LA have applied to the area will be made even more restrictive towards cycling when it is renewed. 'Bicycles' are already banned from the pedestrian area in the town centre with no concessions. Yet there are concessions for motorised vehicles for loading/unloading.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited:
