Pavement cyclists.

[OldFashionedCyclist]

[QUOTE 1101630"]
By all means, if it's something you feel so strongly about and you think as you do that you'll get sufficient backing, please start a campaign.
[/quote]

Nope. Unlike you, I'm not a fanatic. I'm just saying that if you stand back from the thing it is obvious that the deterioration in cyclists' behaviour, and the number of people it annoys, is bound to lead to licensing. They do it in Santa Monica, I see, and people are talking about it all over the place. People have had enough, and so it's just a matter of time. The only thing that would stop it would be if cyclists grow up, and we all know that it isn't going to happen.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Unless it is a fixie!
[QUOTE 1101622"]
It's a legal requirement for bikes to have two working brakes.
[/quote]

 

[Dan B]

Nope. Unlike you, I'm not a fanatic.

I see two sides to this argument: one side is saying "If it doesn't cause anyone any harm then what's the problem?", and the other is using words like "furious", "pissed off", "fantasy world" and "arrogant idiots"


I can't say I find it hard to decide which comes off as more fanatical

 

[adds21]

They do it in Santa Monica, I see,

FYI, they don't do it in Santa Monica anymore.

 

[Dan B]

They do it in Santa Monica, I see

As an anti-theft measure, for residents bikes only, and it costs $3 and requires no test of riding ability. Not really all that relevant to your point

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

I see two sides to this argument: one side is saying "If it doesn't cause anyone any harm then what's the problem?", and the other is using words like "furious", "pissed off", "fantasy world" and "arrogant idiots"


I can't say I find it hard to decide which comes off as more fanatical

It's never for the aggressor to decide whether or not there 's a problem. Indeed, the irony of your post is wonderful. I assume you've had the experience of having to swerve or brake to avoid some cretinous car driver, only to remonstrate with them at the next set of lights and have them look at you blankly, unable to see what the fuss is all about? Did their initial behaviour make you furious, or pissed off? And how about their fatuous incomprehension? That's what you're doing to us. It's kind of obvious!

One side here is just pretending there's no problem, ignoring all the evidence, no matter how clearly and rationally it is presented (see earlier long piece by myself), and the other side is justifiably annoyed.

In the big picture cyclists have got fed up with crap car-drivers and have retreated to the pavements, and are now visiting exactly the same crap on us. I must say, I find it amazing that so many cyclists seem genuinely to be unable to see that.

The point about Santa Monica is simply that it's do-able. There are probably dozens of ways of doing it once people start thinking about it seriously, which is what is starting to happen. All that is necessary is sufficient public anger and concern, and that is what the red-light dickheads and the grannyspinners are generating.

FYI, your use of an extra-large font comes across as a bit mad.

 

[ManiaMuse]

My thread just refuses to die.

 

[Dan B]

Sorry, the font size change was not intentional. My web browser seems to randomly change font size whenever I edit text and i don't always spot it before I press 'Submit'. "A bit mad" pretty much covers it.

It's never for the aggressor to decide whether or not there 's a problem. Indeed, the irony of your post is wonderful. I assume you've had the experience of having to swerve or brake to avoid some cretinous car driver, only to remonstrate with them at the next set of lights and have them look at you blankly, unable to see what the fuss is all about?

Yes, indeed I have. I have also - many many more times - had the experience of a non-cretinous car driver performing a safe overtake, or holding back from overtaking, or just generally sharing the carriageway with me in a non-aggressive non-infuriating manner. As I'm sure you have too. Given that only a very small subset of car drivers are cretinously oblivious to the intimidation and worry they cause other road users, isn't it perhaps plausible that the same applies to cyclists sharing the pavement? Most if not all of us are at some time pedestrians as well as cyclists, why should it be axiomatic that when we are astride bicycles we become "aggressors"? The added mass and sharp bits are surely a factor, but the considerate pavement cyclist mitigates that risk by e.g. slowing to near-walking pace and leaving lots of room when approaching pedestrians - just as a considerate motorist mitigates the risk of his added mass/sharp bits in carriageway interactions with cyclists. Why is it, in short, one set of assumptions for car drivers interacting with cyclists, and another set completely for cyclists interacting with pedestrians? Clearly the powers that be recognise that not every cyclist on a footpath is behaving aggressively or they would not have introduced shared-use paths, so on what basis are you apparently claiming they're flat-out wrong to do so?

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

Clearly the powers that be recognise that not every cyclist on a footpath is behaving aggressively or they would not have introduced shared-use paths, so on what basis are you apparently claiming they're flat-out wrong to do so?

Nothing wrong with this sort: http://www.bicycling...ering/paths.cfm

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

[QUOTE 1101637"]
You are either ignoring everything that's been said on this thread, or just don't understand it.

Either way, what will be will be, and your groundless ranting predictions won't change anything. You clearly feel very strongly about the issue, but aren't prepared to do anything about it.
People will continue to ride considerately on the pavement in the circumstances described, the authorities will continue to take a sensible and tolerant approach and cycling will continue to grow. And that's great.
[/quote]

The problem is that your definition of "considerately" includes that Tokyo pavement, where if any of those pedestrians being overtaken were to step to one side at the wrong moment they would be knocked over. If you cannot see that that seriously diminishes that social space for pedestrians, then I don't know what goes through your head. A beam of light, probably.

I wrote a long piece explaining all of this in detail, but, as usual, you either ignored it or didn't understand it.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ciandy - if you're still with this, can I ask you a question. What do you think of the new arrangement on the Western Esplanade?

 

[Dan B]

The problem is that your definition of "considerately" includes that Tokyo pavement

I find that unlikely, as I haven't at any time mentioned "that Tokyo pavement", nor have I even viewed the video you're talking about. And to forestall your next question I have not been to Tokyo either.

I did read your long post. If you look back in the thread you will see that I posted a reply in which I agreed with much of it. To start making claims that I am ignoring what others have written is, on this evidence, a pretty poor showing.

 

[mickle]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

You need to calm the **** down before you pop a blood vessel. And please leave off the personal abuse, it's not considered good form.

 

[summerdays]

[QUOTE 1101637"]
You clearly feel very strongly about the issue, but aren't prepared to do anything about it.
People will continue to ride considerately on the pavement in the circumstances described, the authorities will continue to take a sensible and tolerant approach and cycling will continue to grow. And that's great.
[/quote]

+1

You seem to have ignored my posts which suggest that if you feel strongly about it that YOU DO something about it ... you have the power to change policing priorities locally (I'm assuming that neighbourhood forums are national?). If it annoys you so much then go and complain with those friends of yours and get the places where it is worst, targeted.

 

[BrumJim]

[QUOTE 1101651"]
One thing the Chief Inspector said in her email to me earlier in the week was that if there are complaints that in a specific area there are problems with pavement cycling then they would go out and address it, so summerdays is right, one person can make a difference.

I've just walked up New St. Pedestrianised area, thousands of people milling around during their lunch break. In and out of shops, stopping to talk, chuggers prowling and pounching. And a handful of pavement cyclists. It was carnage. Real carnage*.






*The above is a lie. Everyone was just going about their business, and letting everyone else go about theirs. It's a marvellous thing to observe.
[/quote]

But being Birmingham, most people were moaning about it......