Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[AlexAtkin]

I regularly encounter pedestrians stepping into roads without looking, often whilst looking at their phones (earlier this week it was a guy browsing around on his iPad). I've also never come close to hitting one, both as a driver and cyclist. The simple reason is, that I am considerably more careful than they are.

 

You are assuming that EVERY pedestrian who walks blindly into the road does so with a big enough gap between them and the cyclist/driver so they can react. That is an extremely unrealistic assumption.

 

So I would argue the "simple" reason you haven't come close to hitting anyone is because you have been very lucky in your encounters.

Edited July 16, 2015 by AlexAtkin

[mattleonard]

You are assuming that EVERY pedestrian who walks blindly into the road does so with a big enough gap between them and the cyclist/driver so they can react.

 

I'm certainly not assuming that - I'm typically assuming the opposite.

 

That is an extremely unrealistic assumption.

 

See above.

 

You have clearly just been lucky to never encounter an unavoidable or barely avoidable incident.

 

Absolutely. (although, I think I actually have escaped a few barely avoidable incidents by being particularly careful) (EDIT: yes, on reflection I think I possibly did exaggerate when I said "never come close" in the earlier post. It's also worth clarifying that the "simple reason" I mentioned only applies to the situations I have encountered, rather than those I haven't, or haven't yet encountered)

 

I'm not saying you aren't careful, but its foolish to assume that care will avoid all incidents.

 

See above

Edited July 16, 2015 by mattleonard

[WiseOwl182]

Can you remember which side of the argument you're on WiseOwl? How is people using cars as weapons skewing the figures? A small proportion of the figures no doubt are that scenario - but why does that mean they should be disregarded, rather than considered part of the problem? And why is it that those people who target groups of pedestrians choose to do so using cars rather than bikes? And why should people like you show animosity to all cyclists for jumping lights and cycling on the pavement, and not all motorists for targeting groups of pedestrians? And why should "accidents" which involve people in cars be disregarded, whilst accidents involving people on bikes should not? Oh, and you've not answered my earlier question, ie. which is it: that cycling on the pavement isn't as dangerous as you've been making out, or else that the amount of pavement cycling has been blown out of all proportion?

 

I'm not on either "side" of the argument. Cyclone claimed cyclists never killed pedestrians and I proved they do. It was then pointed out that cyclists only hurt 2% of pedestrians on pavements, so I pointed out that could be because cyclists only represent about that much of the traffic, and neither cyclists nor cars should be on pavements. In answer to your question.... cycling on pavements is dangerous as they injure their "fair share" of pedestrians. The amount of pavement cycling I'm not sure about... in my experience I don't see too much of it.

 

---------- Post added 16-07-2015 at 21:37 ----------

 

So are you going to help encourage cyclists to ride on the road by arguing that motorists should drive around them in the manner as required by the law and described in the highway code? Because if you aren't going to do that it will be obvious you don't really care about pedestrians and are just looking for opportunities to have a go at cyclists.

 

It's not my job to encourage cycling! Of course motorists should drive around them properly - I always do, but I have to admit some cyclists do *seem* to intentionally make it difficult.

[altus]

It's not my job to encourage cycling!

 

It's not your job to discourage cycling on pavements either but you seem to be very keen on doing it.

 

Of course motorists should drive around them properly - I always do, but I have to admit some cyclists do *seem* to intentionally make it difficult.

 

And that just points to a lack of understanding about how cyclists are supposed to ride. Perhaps you should get yourself on a Bikeability course - you might learn something and end up a less stressed and safer driver as a result.

[mattleonard]

I'm not on either "side" of the argument. Cyclone claimed cyclists never killed pedestrians and I proved they do. It was then pointed out that cyclists only hurt 2% of pedestrians on pavements, so I pointed out that could be because cyclists only represent about that much of the traffic, and neither cyclists nor cars should be on pavements. In answer to your question.... cycling on pavements is dangerous as they injure their "fair share" of pedestrians. The amount of pavement cycling I'm not sure about... in my experience I don't see too much of it.

 

If that is the point you were trying to make, then fair enough, I'd almost go as far as agreeing; although it does seem to conflict with your response to altus here, and I think you're being a bit uncharitable to cyclone in taking his hyperbole literally.

 

On the safety thing, I don't cycle on the pavement - mainly because I feel that trying to avoid breaking the law is good for social cohesion. But by that same token, unnecessary laws are counterproductive as they raise these kinds of conflicts. One of the places I cycle regularly is the waitrose hole in the road, and I have to say, that if that is considered safe for shared use and segregated pavements then I can't think of any pavements in Sheffield that would be a bad candidate on safety grounds, including many which would be safer for cyclists than the road they are on. I actually think the Waitrose roundabout is terrible, but somehow I've never known an incident occur, despite the occasional (and one particular) idiot cycling on it, and lots of pedestrians ignoring the markings. On that basis, I'd say presumed liability maybe isn't such a bad idea.

 

EDIT: I'm guilty of hyperbole now - actually I can think of lots of pavements that would be bad on safety grounds, generally narrow ones where there are doorways onto the street. But I don't think they're *very* much worse than the waitrose roundabout.

Edited July 16, 2015 by mattleonard

[Cyclone]

I'm not on either "side" of the argument. Cyclone claimed cyclists never killed pedestrians and I proved they do.

We already knew the real figure of course, and it's so close to zero that it might as well be. Lightning kills more people than cyclists every year.

It was then pointed out that cyclists only hurt 2% of pedestrians on pavements, so I pointed out that could be because cyclists only represent about that much of the traffic, and neither cyclists nor cars should be on pavements.

But given that you think cyclists are so dangerous, and that they already use the pavement when they shouldn't, the relative traffic volumes don't explain why so many pedestrians are killed by cars on the pavement.

In answer to your question.... cycling on pavements is dangerous

Life is dangerous. Cycling on the pavement carefully is not an unreasonable level of risk to anyone.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 10:07 ----------

 

If that is the point you were trying to make, then fair enough, I'd almost go as far as agreeing; although it does seem to conflict with your response to altus here, and I think you're being a bit uncharitable to cyclone in taking his hyperbole literally.

 

On the safety thing, I don't cycle on the pavement - mainly because I feel that trying to avoid breaking the law is good for social cohesion. But by that same token, unnecessary laws are counterproductive as they raise these kinds of conflicts. One of the places I cycle regularly is the waitrose hole in the road, and I have to say, that if that is considered safe for shared use and segregated pavements then I can't think of any pavements in Sheffield that would be a bad candidate on safety grounds, including many which would be safer for cyclists than the road they are on. I actually think the Waitrose roundabout is terrible, but somehow I've never known an incident occur, despite the occasional (and one particular) idiot cycling on it, and lots of pedestrians ignoring the markings. On that basis, I'd say presumed liability maybe isn't such a bad idea.

 

EDIT: I'm guilty of hyperbole now - actually I can think of lots of pavements that would be bad on safety grounds, generally narrow ones where there are doorways onto the street. But I don't think they're *very* much worse than the waitrose roundabout.

 

It's a terrible design for shared space isn't it. Poor visibility turning into and out of the passageways, the lanes are on different sides in different passages. And the design forces bikes/pedestrians to cross each others lanes (and that's when the pedestrians even notice that there is a bike lane).

[WiseOwl182]

It's not your job to discourage cycling on pavements either but you seem to be very keen on doing it.

 

 

 

And that just points to a lack of understanding about how cyclists are supposed to ride. Perhaps you should get yourself on a Bikeability course - you might learn something and end up a less stressed and safer driver as a result.

 

 

You're making some big assumptions. Cyclists on pavements isn't particularly my bugbear - if you follow the thread, my main criticism is red light running. You might be confusing me with someone else. And stressed? Moi? Not at all. Already unstressed and safe thanks.

 

---------- Post added 17-07-2015 at 20:54 ----------

 

We already knew the real figure of course, and it's so close to zero that it might as well be. Lightning kills more people than cyclists every year.

 

I thought a pedant such as your good self would appreciate precision with figures. "Never" does not equate to 1 death every other year (if indeed that figure is correct).

[TimmyR]

Ultimately, this comes down to the point that pedestrians should be on pavements, drivers on roads and cyclists on cycle paths but while there are very few cycle paths and those that exist woefully inadequate, cyclists are forced to make the decision to either put themselves at risk on the road or break the law on the path. Until major investment is put into cycling to create decent infrastructure we are going to continue to have this conflict of usage. What I think is an extremely ugly part of our culture is that a vulnerable minority can be victimised, threatened, taunted and harrassed in the way that cyclists are and the excuse is always that a minority of the minority commit some minor traffic offense.

 

If you see a cyclists commit a minor traffic offense, please, report them if you really think it'll benefit society but don't go and start threads on fora whinging about cyclists in general; don't aggressively overtake or cut up the next cyclist you see, or even the person who committed the offense; don't deliberately stop cyclists from passing you on the left; don't see it as a reason to hate a demographic that doesn't really exist. Cyclists are just people. If a pedestrian or driver does something wrong you don't hate all pedestrians or drivers. It should be the same for cyclists.

Edited July 20, 2015 by TimmyR

[jezzyjj]

I heard an interest comment about this the day. Can't recall exact wordings but the gist was...

'Cyclists are in a really vague grey area where they are not seen to be welcomed on either roads or pavements' Both by design and some people's attitude.

[mondeo blade]

cyclists should have insurance my friend had her car damage buy a cyclist its was the cyclist fault but my friend has got to pay for the damage