Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[altus]

And we haven't even raised the subject of whether all bicycles should have bells yet.

 

That one's easy. Pretty much all cyclists have working vocal chords which can do the same job as a bell. But as neither vocal chords nor bells are much good at getting through the sound proofing that cars have and so are unlikely to be heard anyway, particularly if the driver is listening to the radio, the question is somewhat moot.

[WiseOwl182]

Cyclists don't kill pedestrians.

 

What, never?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070290/Cyclist-killed-pensioner-crashing-doing-25mph-narrow-country-lane-dark-rainy-night.html

 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

[PeteM01]

If it was legal then people would rapidly learn to expect it.

And it should only be legal if done at no more than running speed, and done safely (which depends on the level of traffic and the amount of space).

 

Personally I'd stick to the road the majority of the time, it gives priority (over side roads), it doesn't have pedestrians in the way, etc...

 

Some people can't 'expect it', however. Small children cannot anticipate the behaviour of faster moving pavement users and are probably amongst the most likely pedestrians to be injured by cyclists. We train them to stay on pavements and avoid cars at all costs but they simply do not know what to do when approached by cyclists in their 'safe' space. Many cyclists are young men who do not have children and so find this quite difficult to understand.

[AlexAtkin]

If cycling on the pavement were to be made legal, then it should be on the basis of cyclists giving way to pedestrians under all circumstances - no ifs or buts, but an absolute "pedestrians have priority". If there are a lot of pedestrians already on the pavement, then the reality is that you either get off and walk, or you stay on the road. Pavement cycling would only work when the pavement is not busy. If it is already busy with pedestrians, then cycling would not be practical.

 

EXACTLY! Finally, someone who "gets it".

 

The people on here who suddenly think that cycling being legal on the pavement would mean a ton of cyclists running into pedestrians at 25mph, are really missing the point.

 

The kind of cyclists who would do that, ALREADY do that, as they are a selfish bunch who don't give two hoots about anyones safety, including their own it seems. Like the video that was posted of a cyclist running into a child outside her house, he shouldn't have been going fast enough for that to happen.

 

I openly admit I do cycle on the pavement sometimes, but its always with care and attention and mostly at walking speed. As such, I would always choose the road when safe to do so as cycling at walking speed is no fun at all.

 

If I get stuck behind pedestrians, I stay there, I do not even ring my bell as I have no right to rush them out of the way. Usually they will notice me after a while and invite me to pass with a smile. I have never had a single complaint.

 

There are also occasions I have cycled on the pavement because I COULDN'T push my bike past the cars PARKED on the pavement. Or I would be obstructing pedestrians because when going up-hill pushing my heavy bike, I would be considerably slower than them, while also taking up the whole pavement due to the width of me and the bike.

 

Ironically, the only times I have had problems cycling on the pavement have been in the places where it IS legal, the shared use in the city centre. People seem to be completely oblivious to the fact the pink pavement is for cyclists so they walk across it, often diagonally, or stand in it, without paying any attention at all.

 

I run into this problem especially up the side of Staples where people always stand to cross right at the dropped curb on South Lane. You are far better walking up that bit although I suspect it was more designed for going down the other way, but people still walk in it that direction too.

 

Although my pet peeve is Sheaf Street, as the newsagent puts his sign ON the cycle path and combined again with people walking in it, its actually kinda dangerous to try cycling in it. Particularly frustrating as the crossings around there are meant to be cycle-friendly.

 

Some people can't 'expect it', however. Small children cannot anticipate the behaviour of faster moving pavement users and are probably amongst the most likely pedestrians to be injured by cyclists. We train them to stay on pavements and avoid cars at all costs but they simply do not know what to do when approached by cyclists in their 'safe' space. Many cyclists are young men who do not have children and so find this quite difficult to understand.

 

Except the point is moot, because when cycling on the pavement you should be aware of pedestrians and only cycling at walking speed, especially if in an area where you cannot anticipate if a young child will suddenly run in front of you.

 

Its no different to how you are supposed to drive on the road according to the conditions. Such as slowing down if it looks like someone is about to open their car door, or step into the road.

 

Legalising cycling on the pavement does not mean legalising dangerous cycling on the pavement. Just as its not legal to do so on the road either.

 

Cycling with due care and attention ALWAYS applies, period!

Edited July 15, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[TimmyR]

If cycling on the pavement were to be made legal, then it should be on the basis of cyclists giving way to pedestrians under all circumstances - no ifs or buts, but an absolute "pedestrians have priority". If there are a lot of pedestrians already on the pavement, then the reality is that you either get off and walk, or you stay on the road. Pavement cycling would only work when the pavement is not busy. If it is already busy with pedestrians, then cycling would not be practical.

 

I completely agree with this - although it would be very difficult to police so would probably be advisory. The major advantage of allowing cycling on pavements is it will enable unconfident cyclists to ride their bikes. More people on bikes is a good thing for general health, for congestion and for air pollution.

[Squiggs]

Although my pet peeve is Sheaf Street, as the newsagent puts his sign ON the cycle path and combined again with people walking in it, its actually kinda dangerous to try cycling in it. Particularly frustrating as the crossings around there are meant to be cycle-friendly.

 

It's a handy car park for the takeaways next to the newsagent though

[Cyclone]

What, never?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070290/Cyclist-killed-pensioner-crashing-doing-25mph-narrow-country-lane-dark-rainy-night.html

 

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars

 

So infrequently as to be inconsequential against the 3000 pedestrians killed by cars. The actual number is approx 1 every 2 years I believe.

 

Summing up the evidence and recording a verdict of misadventure, Mr Brunton said: 'I have never encountered a case like this before.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 09:58 ----------

 

If cycling on the pavement were to be made legal, then it should be on the basis of cyclists giving way to pedestrians under all circumstances - no ifs or buts, but an absolute "pedestrians have priority". If there are a lot of pedestrians already on the pavement, then the reality is that you either get off and walk, or you stay on the road. Pavement cycling would only work when the pavement is not busy. If it is already busy with pedestrians, then cycling would not be practical.

 

It's possible to move at pedestrian speed, but I can't see why anyone would really want to, unless it was avoiding a dangerous roundabout or something.

 

Pedestrians always have priority is fine, but frankly not necessary. Arguing over who had the right of way whilst you both lay in a heap on the floor is not an exercise anyone wants to engage in. Running into pedestrians is naturally avoided by cyclists as it causes them to fall off and be hurt.

 

---------- Post added 15-07-2015 at 09:59 ----------

 

Some people can't 'expect it', however. Small children cannot anticipate the behaviour of faster moving pavement users and are probably amongst the most likely pedestrians to be injured by cyclists. We train them to stay on pavements and avoid cars at all costs but they simply do not know what to do when approached by cyclists in their 'safe' space. Many cyclists are young men who do not have children and so find this quite difficult to understand.

 

Children that young will of course have parents with them who DO know what to do.

[WiseOwl182]

So infrequently as to be inconsequential against the 3000 pedestrians killed by cars. The actual number is approx 1 every 2 years I believe

 

First of all, you said cyclists don't kill pedestrians, but they do. So you were wrong.... Go on, just admit it.

 

Secondly, where is your source on 1 death every 2 years? The article I linked to stated there are 5 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than from cyclists. So if you're saying 3,000 for cars, then I'd make that around 600 for cyclists.

[altus]

First of all, you said cyclists don't kill pedestrians, but they do. So you were wrong.... Go on, just admit it.

 

Secondly, where is your source on 1 death every 2 years? The article I linked to stated there are 5 times more pedestrian deaths from cars than from cyclists. So if you're saying 3,000 for cars, then I'd make that around 600 for cyclists.

 

That's only because they've misread the original report they linked to in The Times which states:

The data shows that drivers are five times more likely than a cyclist to kill a pedestrian. Cyclists killed 0.27 pedestrians per billion km pedalled, compared with 1.4 pedestrians killed per billion km driven in 2012, the latest year for which figures exist.

 

But if you want to talk absolute numbers, it states:

One pedestrian was killed by a cyclist and 78 were seriously injured in 2012. At the same time, 253 pedestrians were killed by drivers in urban areas and 4,426 were seriously injured.

[mattleonard]

First of all, you said cyclists don't kill pedestrians, but they do. So you were wrong.... Go on, just admit it.

 

Was it you that we had to explain hyperbole to a few weeks ago?