Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclists being careful

Hi and hello everyone.

First of all, I want everyone to understand I have no gripe against cyclists. 

However, locally there is a pedestrian/cycle path. The cyclists take delight in zooming past pedestrians as close and as fast as possible. So e weeks ago a cyclists ran into me, bruised my back, swore at me and accused me of " being all over the place". I asked why he did not warn me by using g his bell. Instead of replying g he rode off.

I have asked the local council to consider having demarcation lines one side for pedestrians, one side for cyclists. So far there has been no response.

What is youd view on this , I feel there will be more accidents, maybe even a fatality.

Car drivers have to give e cyclists a metre and a half passing room, how about the same for cyclists to give pedestrians?

Just out of interest, I was 69 last weekend, I have several health conditions including g a heart condition. I just want to have a short walk a couple of times a day without being scared of being the victim of an accident or being sworn at.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

36 comments

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to Mad1580 | 1 year ago
0 likes

Mad1580 wrote:

And no I do not have insight into their mental state, just a knowledge of the hand signals they make when I ask them why they didn't warn me of their presence.

Maybe the reaction is more to your accusational and negative tone? "Why didn't you warn me of your presence" Your question infers that they are in the wrong for not doing something but the reality is they are not required to. 

Mad1580 wrote:

All I heard behind me was " oh,oh,oh" then the impact.

Was this not a warning of their presence?? This sounds like the collision was an accident after some sort of mistake, maybe a swerve in reaction to a squirrel running out, who knows. You should not apportion malice to what can easily be attributed to an accident or lack of ability.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to andystow | 1 year ago
0 likes

.

Hook.

.

Line.

.

Sinker.

.

Couldn't resist trying to shoot down a very respectful attempt to have a constructive discussion, started by someone WHO IS BASICALLY ON YOUR SIDE!

.

Gosh, is yours a fixed attitude by any chance? 'We're in the right, cos we're cyclists'.

.

How to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory.

.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Flintshire Boy | 1 year ago
8 likes

Hook, line, sinker seems to be the attitude of someone who has posted under a fake account and then caught someone with it. 

I hope this isn't the case even though the poster also seems to have keys stuck on their keyboard. 

And in your rush to "be right", you seem to have not noticed Andy replying with 

Quote:

In any case, yes separation might help if the path is wide enough, and yes cyclists should ride relatively slowly around pedestrians and give them a wide berth, even if it means waiting to pass. The vast majority of us do so.

A map link to the path might help if you really want fruitful discussion.

 

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 1 year ago
3 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Hook, line, sinker seems to be the attitude of someone who has posted under a fake account and then caught someone with it. 

I hope this isn't the case even though the poster also seems to have keys stuck on their keyboard. 

Or, believes they have "caught someone with it", which they actually have not.

The OP seems to generalise all cyclists as behaving this way on this particular path, which seems incredibly unlikely and inconsistent with "not having agripe with cyclists"... so not at all "ON YOUR SIDE", whatever side of whatever that is, some imaginery conflict I would posit.

The 50-year-old crashing into an older person when it sounds entirely avoidable and preferable also doesn't pass the sniff test. I can't imagine deliberately cycling that close to someone, let alone in such circumstances.

mad1580 wrote:

"I don't want cyclists to be castigated, but pedestrians have rights too. Why can't that be respected. Now I drive to a different location ,walking around d a beautiful lake,where cyclists are not allowed!!"

The "Why can't that be respected" also seems disingenuous, and then there are the double exclamation marks on "where cyclists are not allowed". A very confused message saying they think cyclists are fine but then betraying that with all the hidden intentions in the remarks.

If the particular shared path is as bad as they claim it is, I would recommend staying away from it.

Paint isn't infrastructure, and many pedestrians stray into the cyclist side of such divided paths, which just leaves less room for a cyclist to pass on (which is obviously worse), so I would say a dividing line could make things worse.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Flintshire Boy | 1 year ago
7 likes

Why don't you just make a constructive reply to the OP?
Do you have any advice for the OP?

Avatar
andystow replied to andystow | 1 year ago
4 likes

andystow wrote:

"The cyclists take delight in zooming past pedestrians as close and as fast as possible."

This seems unlikely unless they're teenagers trying to impress their friends. Do you have some insight into their mental state that most people wouldn't, or do they laugh maniacally as they pass?

Let me clarify as of course I've been misinterpreted. I'm not denying that the person who started this thread got hit by an inconsiderate cyclist, nor that she gets passed by cyclists at speed and distance that she finds uncomfortable. I take issue with what I quoted in italics because:

  1. She has no way of knowing that they're taking delight in it.
  2. Who the fuck does that? Anyone who did would crash daily. Crashing hurts.

Pages

Latest Comments