Tried to knock a bloke of his bike today

[Mark_Robson]

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

Absolutely not. This is about a pedestrian defending himself against a cyclist who is deliberately trying to ride through him rather than around him. There is no comparison between the two.

 

[thomas]

Absolutely not. This is about a pedestrian defending himself against a cyclist who is deliberately trying to ride through him rather than around him. There is no comparison between the two.

The thing is though, the mentality is the same. "They're doing something wrong, I will punish them!".

 

[Mark_Robson]

The thing is though, the mentality is the same. "They're doing something wrong, I will punish them!".

No it's not, its defending yourself. The OP stated quite clearly that the cyclist made the concious decision to go through the peds rather than slow and go around them. If I was one of those peds I probably would have done the same thing, just as I would try and defend myself if someone attacked me.
The cyclist was obviously a bully who thought he could do as he pleased and I'm sorry but bullies deserve what they get.
Defending yourself would be pushing him away, punishing him would entail giving him a good hiding as well. No one has suggested punishing him.

TBH my rational side says that it's counter productive and possibly dangerous to push a cyclist away from you but in the heat of the moment I couldn't honestly say that I wouldn't do it and I would find it hard to criticise someone who did.

 

[eldudino]

Someone traveling at 20mph with 10KG of bike

That's bullshit, all the pavement cyclists I see are on at least a 15kg machine...

 

[thomas]

No it's not, its defending yourself. The OP stated quite clearly that the cyclist made the concious decision to go through the peds rather than slow and go around them. If I was one of those peds I probably would have done the same thing, just as I would try and defend myself if someone attacked me.
The cyclist was obviously a bully who thought he could do as he pleased and I'm sorry but bullies deserve what they get.
Defending yourself would be pushing him away, punishing him would entail giving him a good hiding as well. No one has suggested punishing him.

TBH my rational side says that it's counter productive and possibly dangerous to push a cyclist away from you but in the heat of the moment I couldn't honestly say that I wouldn't do it and I would find it hard to criticise someone who did.

The op wasn't defending himself

just squeezing between myself and the startled couple. As he passed me I managed to push him on the shoulder/upper arm almost hard enough to knock him off.

He fitted between. He didn't push until the cyclist had passed him.

 

[mangaman]

No it's not, its defending yourself. The OP stated quite clearly that the cyclist made the concious decision to go through the peds rather than slow and go around them. If I was one of those peds I probably would have done the same thing, just as I would try and defend myself if someone attacked me.
The cyclist was obviously a bully who thought he could do as he pleased and I'm sorry but bullies deserve what they get.
Defending yourself would be pushing him away, punishing him would entail giving him a good hiding as well. No one has suggested punishing him.

TBH my rational side says that it's counter productive and possibly dangerous to push a cyclist away from you but in the heat of the moment I couldn't honestly say that I wouldn't do it and I would find it hard to criticise someone who did.

I can't believe how sensitive everone is.

Pavement cycling is unbelievably common IMHO - I rarely walk to work without encountering a few.

Injuries, as someone said, caused by them is miniscule. If we attacked pavement cyclists, the injury rate would rise greatly - to the cyclists.

I don't buy the line that the OP was in mortal danger and had no choice but to throw the cyclist into the railings - sounds like an overreaction to an everyday event.

 

[summerdays]

There are two types of pavement cyclists - the considerate and the other ones. No one is talking about actively attacking pavement cyclists, much as we would like to. But to be honest many of us would like the aggressive inconsiderate pavement cyclists get their comeuppence in some way. They end up giving cyclists in general a bad name and also those who for what ever reason feel they need to cycle on the pavement carefully a bad name too.

 

[mangaman]

There are two types of pavement cyclists - the considerate and the other ones. No one is talking about actively attacking pavement cyclists, much as we would like to. But to be honest many of us would like the aggressive inconsiderate pavement cyclists get their comeuppence in some way. They end up giving cyclists in general a bad name and also those who for what ever reason feel they need to cycle on the pavement carefully a bad name too.

Exactly - I think the risk here is being exaggerated.

As I said earlier, I was nearly run over by a pavement cyclist the same day. Some quick manouevering on both our parts avoided injury.

I calles him a tosser for pavement riding, which he accepted.

To push him off never enteerd my mind

 

[Jezston]

If you are particularly burly, what about just grabbing them? Both arms round the waist as they go past and they just drop the bike and no one gets hurt. Then you can cuddle.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

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.

We're not talking just about death to the peds though, are we? The cyclist poses an actual risk of injury to the peds on the pavement when riding in an aggressive/dangerous way, in much the same way the ped would pose an actual risk to the cyclist if they connected with them when they were passing. No difference.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

The op wasn't defending himself. He fitted between. He didn't push until the cyclist had passed him.

Err, nope... he pushed "as he passed me" not "after he had passed me" or "once he had passed me".. the cyclist was in the process of passing. Making a pass at him, if you like.

 

[Arch]

I can't see any problem with that I only ever use the path at clogged up junctions where it's impossible to filter. I do exactly the same - take it very slow and always give any pedestrians I encounter plenty of space. I know, technically it's ilegal, but I think a common sense approach is fine.

So, there's too much traffic for your convenience, so you take to the pavement. Would you be happy if the car drivers did the same?

If you reduce your cycling to walking pace, you may as well just get off and walk, surely?

It's funny how we (and I've no doubt been guilty of it myself) say 'technically illegal' as if that makes it ok. All legality is technical, isn't it? What we tend to mean is "It's illegal, but for the moment I consider myself above that..."

The trouble with common sense is, a lot of people don't have it, which is why we have to have laws that to some appear draconian...

 

[Zippy]

While I cycle on the road as I commute to work, I do see people sensibly cycling on pavements at a reasonable speed and on the brakes downhill, avoiding pedestrians and giving them the right of way.

Even my own daily route entails a short bit along a pedestrian walkway which is frequented by students between McD's and the campus grounds. Not using this bit of tarmac would mean me having to face the daily risk of a busy, dangerous and hot-headed junction at hte top of a steep hill; just when I need the speed and wits about me I am facing this junction trying to regain my breath and strength. Obviously I am going to mix it with the students as a safer option.

I presume the pavement cyclists I see are those who have just started cycling and may lack the stamina, control or assertiveness to take fully to the road and so cycle slower on the pavements; mindful of other pavement users on the whole. To push one of those cycle users for being "in the wrong place" may just stop them from cycling ever again and would be one less of us and one more of them as they take to the safer option; the car.

The students I encounter are friendly and appreciative that I stop for them if it is obvious we cannot pass each other safely. Hopefully my actions will rub off of they ever take to cycling.

So you pushed a cyclist for being wrong. I hope that made you feel good. Luckily this time the cyclist didn't stop and punch you one. Lucky foe the cyclist the railings were there to stop the cyclist from falling into the road or you may have been up for manslaughter.

 

[NigC]

So, there's too much traffic for your convenience, so you take to the pavement. Would you be happy if the car drivers did the same?

If you reduce your cycling to walking pace, you may as well just get off and walk, surely?

It's funny how we (and I've no doubt been guilty of it myself) say 'technically illegal' as if that makes it ok. All legality is technical, isn't it? What we tend to mean is "It's illegal, but for the moment I consider myself above that..."

The trouble with common sense is, a lot of people don't have it, which is why we have to have laws that to some appear draconian...

Yes, I break the law for my convenience, I admit it And I shall continue to do so where I feel I am being considerate to others. Driving a car on the pavement could never be thought of as considerate, no matter what the speed.

If cycling at walking pace is still a big no-no, then walking with a bike is no different. In fact it's less considerate as you're taking up more pavement while doing so.

So I take it you're not happy with anyone cycling on the pavement regardless of how sensible and considerate they are? Would you complain to the Post Office about all their employees cycling on the pavement or the local paper shop about all their delivery boys and girls doing the same?

I'm comfortable with my little piece of law-breaking at my convenience. There is however a small minority who view the pavement as a place where they have the right to cycle at whatever speed they like with no regard for others around them. But I woould never take the action as described by the OP.

 

[Arch]

Yes, I break the law for my convenience, I admit it And I shall continue to do so where I feel I am being considerate to others. Driving a car on the pavement could never be thought of as considerate, no matter what the speed.

Why not? If it's ok to slow down and be careful on a bike, why not in a car?

With regard to postmen and paperboys - no I don't think they should be on the pavement either, if the law says otherwise. Ideally, the law should be better framed, but that makes enforcement more complicated. And I'd rather the roads weren't intimidating places to so many people.

Look, I'm not perfect in this respect either, I admit, I cut across bits of pavement sometimes to get to a cash machine, and on the work trike I sometimes pull up onto the pavement to leave room for traffic to get past while I'm stopped - I'd rather not, but then I'd rather not get beeped and sworn at. I just think it's not a good thing to say it's alright for us, because we're on bikes and very careful.

With regard to the OP, if I thought I could barge someone acting like an idiot, without hurting myself, then yes, I might. But I suspect I'd come off worst.