Tried to knock a bloke of his bike today

[Sh4rkyBloke]

By way of consistency, shouldn't you be pulling mobile using motorists from their vehicles and bludgeoning them? I suspect you could catch them at traffic lights (assuming they stop) or pedestrian crossings.

HTH.

(Full Disclosure - yes, inconsiderate pavement cyclists ARE arses).

I already do this, I assumed it was perfectly legal. Is this not the case???

 

[Mark_Robson]

He saw that there wasn't going to be enough room to get between us but instead of slowing down, he gave a grin and stamped on the pedals, just squeezing between myself and the startled couple.

I have no problem with cyclists using the pavements as long as they ride slowly and give pedestrians right of way. But this guy wasn't doing either of those things. IMO he wouldn't have lost any sleep if he had injured any of the people on foot.
As I already stated my head tells me what the OP did was wrong but my heart tells me that the cyclist deserves a short sharp shock.

You're willing to actually knock someone off for cycling on the pavement? It could result in any number of injuries...a slight head bump could be very serious.

If someone was deliberately coming at me at speed on a pavement then I would defend myself and if that ended up with him hitting the ground then so be it. This isn't about cyclists using the pavement, it's about an adult using a bike to intimidate pedestrians without any regard for their safety.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Saw a cyclist yesterday using the pavement to avoid the cobbled road who knocked a bike propped up against the wall over. He obviously noticed it as he looked around afterwoods but didn't think to stop and pick it up. Followed him along for him to then RLJ really dangerously at speed in front of right turning traffic forcing a car to slam on their brakes.

Guess some people really don't care, based on his reaction to knocking a bike over you have to doubt whether he would stop if he hit a pedestrian. So as tempting as it may be to deliberately obstruct pavement cyclists it may be better to leave them and let Darwin sort it out?

 

[thomas]

Why is it okay for them to put peds at the same risk (higher, in fact) of head injury in the first place though?

I'm willing to continue walking at my own pace and line and if he/she cycles at speed past me without due consideration then I would have no qualms about protecting myself. I'm not saying I'd actively try to push them off by moving towards them or anything, but if they come too close and at speed I would defend my space.

Same thing with RLJers. If I'm crossing the road and one cut across in front of me through the red light then I'd have no issue with bumping into them. I'm not going to stop/slow for them. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

Higher risk...care to explain/justify? My head is just as soft when I'm on the bike or walking. I'm also higher up...and probably travelling at a higher speed and would have a much less controllable fall.

If someone was deliberately coming at me at speed on a pavement then I would defend myself and if that ended up with him hitting the ground then so be it. This isn't about cyclists using the pavement, it's about an adult using a bike to intimidate pedestrians without any regard for their safety.

I have no problem with someone defending themselves on the pavement and maintaining any priority or rights. I have a problem with what the OP described, which seemed to just be an unnecessary act of aggression.

 

[Riding in Circles]

I was on a ped crossing in London, walking, couple of years ago I think when a speeding cyclist shouted "get out the ****ing way!", so I clothes lined him, bike and rider bounced down the road in that way only a clipped in rider can, he gave me a very dirty look but obviously decided cowardice was the better part of valour and said nothing.

 

[Crankarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_Robson
My sensible side is telling me what you did was wrong but my heart is saying good for you, the prick deserved it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sh4rkyBloke
Well, as they are prepared to take the risk of hurting me and any others on the pavement, I'm willing to take the risk of hurting them. Seems only fair, IMO.

Is this any different from the motons who decide to meat out summary justice against cyclists?

 

[RyanW]

Higher risk...care to explain/justify? My head is just as soft when I'm on the bike or walking. I'm also higher up...and probably travelling at a higher speed and would have a much less controllable fall.

It is much easier for a cyclist on a pavement to hurt or kill a ped then it is the other way round. Someone traveling at 20mph with 10KG of bike hitting me with there front wheel, the cyclist can have a much safer landing, then i can especialy if hit from behind. Besides you should have a helmet on making your head far harder then the ped's.

Think about it, lowest denominator always suffers more, and in Ped/Cyclist, ped is lowest denominator.

 

[BentMikey]

Only your last sentence there makes any sense, RyanW.

 

[RyanW]

But on the other hand how many people have you had walk out in front of you on the road. Its a double edged sword. We sometimes invade there "territory" just as they do ours. Had some P&^k on his phone walk right out infront of me, slipped him with my bars (He came from behind a van and i was wide incase something did happen. Shouted an expetive at him, he just looked up for a split second, and carried on walking in the road while texting

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Is this any different from the motons who decide to meat out summary justice against cyclists?

"Mete". Not "meat".

 

[RyanW]

Only your last sentence there makes any sense, RyanW.

40hours no sleep, exam in 40 minutes. I will attempt to re-write

 

[Rhythm Thief]

40hours no sleep, exam in 40 minutes. I will attempt to re-write

Nice to see nothing's changed in StudentWorld since my day.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Higher risk...care to explain/justify?

Stands to reason that more cyclists wear helmets than pedestrians, so therefore higher risk of head injury to the peds if a collision occurs.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

Is this any different from the motons who decide to meat out summary justice against cyclists?

Errrm yes, cyclists are allowed on the roads so no "meating out of justice" should be warranted by motons. Cyclists should not be on pavements (except in limited circumstances dictated mainly, IMO, by age and experience (lack of)) so any self protection undertaken by a ped is fair game.

As I said though, I wouldn't be "exacting revenge/justice", I'd merely be defending myself against someone cycling too fast, too close and dangerously.

 

[thomas]

Stands to reason that more cyclists wear helmets than pedestrians, so therefore higher risk of head injury to the peds if a collision occurs.

So ultimately it's just your opinion on the matter. In all seriousness, there has been what, one death caused by a cyclist on a pavement this decade? Is that right? Even when dicking around cyclists do not pose that much of a safety risk - it's much more of a perceived risk.

Pushing someone off their bike, because they're on the pavement (and not taking other circumstances into account!) is an actual safety risk.

If a cyclist, or anyone came straight at me and was going to hit me I would obviously push them away, but I wouldn't do it just because they were cycling poorly on the pavement. Maybe call them a name or two.