Protesters against “reckless” cyclists block Hackney street

muppetkeeper wrote:

I always slow down in urban areas such as these, those pesky kids can break a spoke if you are not careful.

It's really difficult cleaning blood from disc brakes as well.

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

I could not agree more.

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

This is a perfectly reasonable view, and one I have adopted myself, and have avoided hitting children as a result.

What I find rather difficult to swallow, is that these rules only apply to cyclists.  A driver in the same situation who struck a child would almost certainly not be blamed, but a cyclist would.  This is a double standard and until it changes and all similar hypocrisies stop, then we are being discriminated against and held to a higher standard than everybody else.

See my previous post about cyclists always being in the wrong.

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

This is a perfectly reasonable view, and one I have adopted myself, and have avoided hitting children as a result.

What I find rather difficult to swallow, is that these rules only apply to cyclists.  A driver in the same situation who struck a child would almost certainly not be blamed, but a cyclist would.  This is a double standard and until it changes and all similar hypocrisies stop, then we are being discriminated against and held to a higher standard than everybody else.

See my previous post about cyclists always being in the wrong.

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

Mungecrundle wrote:

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

As both a cyclist and husband, your official designation is "scapegoat."

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

As both a cyclist and husband, your official designation is "scapegoat."

I've made my choices...

burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Oh, is THAT the Real Story there? 

(I remember when that was in the news, and have seen all the (not legal) zebra crossings painted there, and hand-painted 'slow down' signs all along that section of the B&B Railway Path).

burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Sriracha wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Thank you for proving so conclusively my proposal that cyclists are always wrong.

As I recall, the child was in the bushes and invisible, but of course the cyclist should have seen him with his x-ray vision.  Even travelling at a relatively slow speed, if someone runs out right in front of you, you're going to hit them.  Perhaps we should all get off and walk?  Clearly, your view is that the only people with any responibility in any collision are cyclists.

Thanks again, and don't forget to chant to yourself a hundred times a day "cyclists are always wrong."  Perhaps you could do stickers for cars?

burtthebike wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Thank you for proving so conclusively my proposal that cyclists are always wrong.

As I recall, the child was in the bushes and invisible, but of course the cyclist should have seen him with his x-ray vision.  Even travelling at a relatively slow speed, if someone runs out right in front of you, you're going to hit them.  Perhaps we should all get off and walk?  Clearly, your view is that the only people with any responibility in any collision are cyclists.

Thanks again, and don't forget to chant to yourself a hundred times a day "cyclists are always wrong."  Perhaps you could do stickers for cars?

 

"Sorry mate, I didn't see you!"

perfect1964 wrote:

I also know the area well having cycled to work most days for the last two years. Since January I’ve also ran through the park a couple of mornings a week. I can say that most cyclists were an inconsiderate nuisance and I can well imagine parents feeling aggrieved. It’s a park! They’re narrow residential streets close to schools. So slow down and let pedestrians pass. And kids do stuff like run out. 

Sadly great chunks of the cyclists I see on my commutes are no less selfish, no less entitled than the  motorists they so readily whine about. And both seem to view pedestrians with equal contempt.

And yes, I’m on the wrong forum to suggest cyclists don’t have the sun shining out their nether regions at all times.

I think I am with you on this. Also the warmer weather is tempting a lot more cyclists out. I have to use 2 way shared paths, and the sight of a wobbling, almost out of control , going too fast for the ability of a bloke on a bike is pretty common and eckin damgerous. Where the hell were you in winter to learn yaself some bike handling skills?

Jem PT wrote:

Electric cars are quiet at low speeds and so not heard by pedestrians. 

As one who cycles in London I would say that too many people use their ears to check if the rosd is clear and as pointed out many times above, parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids how to cross roads, even quiet ones like this. Cycling in town I am always on the lookout for errant pedestrians - a bell is useless, only shouting works!

Some electric cars emit a white noise at speeds below 30 mph. Our Nissan leaf does, but our Tesla doesnt. The Hyundai Kona EV has a white noise emmision too.
Over 30 mph, tyre noise is the loudest noise. I fully agree teach kids to look and listen, twice before crossing roads. Also berate them about being a phone zombie

Jem PT wrote:

Electric cars are quiet at low speeds and so not heard by pedestrians. 

As one who cycles in London I would say that too many people use their ears to check if the rosd is clear and as pointed out many times above, parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids how to cross roads, even quiet ones like this. Cycling in town I am always on the lookout for errant pedestrians - a bell is useless, only shouting works!

Some electric cars emit a white noise at speeds below 30 mph. Our Nissan leaf does, but our Tesla doesnt. The Hyundai Kona EV has a white noise emmision too.
Over 30 mph, tyre noise is the loudest noise. I fully agree teach kids to look and listen, twice before crossing roads. Also berate them about being a phone zombie

bikeman01 wrote:

Sounds like these residents and their children need a lesson in using their eyes and not just their ears when they cross the road/cycle path. As do most pedestrians these days. It will be carnage when we're all driving electric cars.

A few years ago, when electric cars were first being mooted, wasn't there some debate on whether to make them utter a fictional 'car noise' for precisely that purpose?  The silent electric car was to have a recorded 'brum-brum!' sound so that people can hear it coming... (with Porsche engine noises for higher end cars...  ).

brooksby wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Sounds like these residents and their children need a lesson in using their eyes and not just their ears when they cross the road/cycle path. As do most pedestrians these days. It will be carnage when we're all driving electric cars.

A few years ago, when electric cars were first being mooted, wasn't there some debate on whether to make them utter a fictional 'car noise' for precisely that purpose?  The silent electric car was to have a recorded 'brum-brum!' sound so that people can hear it coming... (with Porsche engine noises for higher end cars...  ).

From July this year new electric vehicles and hybrids will need to be fitted with a device that emits a sound when the vehicle is travelling at less than 12 mph.  I'm not a fan of the idea - but that said I wouldn't mind buying one to fit to my bike so it sounds like a car

I don't know, but as it is designed to help pedestrians who don't look, I suspect that the minimum sound level of the device will be 150dB so that it can be heard over their noise cancelling headphones.

Sriracha wrote:

Let's be clear here, it is residents, not the bogeymen motorists, who are complaining about cyclists. There comes a point where cyclists should listen and try to understand the other person's point of view.

I think you've wandered into the wrong forum, mate

Sriracha wrote:

Let's be clear here, it is residents, not the bogeymen motorists, who are complaining about cyclists. There comes a point where cyclists should listen and try to understand the other person's point of view.

I think you've wandered into the wrong forum, mate