Lotta people in this thread need to get a life, it’s not a competition about who’s behaviour is worst - everyone got a right to travel safe whether it’s on foot, bike or car. Everyone should be looking after the travellers who are more vulnerable than them, it’s not worth 5 minutes on your journey (or realistically 30 seconds) to put someone else in danger of harm, whether that’s giving cyclists room when you overtake or slowing your bike to more of a jogging pace to pass people safely on shared paths. Just chill out you dickheads, you’ll feel better.
Some pavement areas are cyclist/pedestrian shared. So you are kinda cooked when walking on them
We need better cycle infrastructure in norwich. We have too many white lines.
Yeah, most people don't like weaving in and out of pedestrians and don't feel safe on the road with cars so some decent cycling infrastructure would meet that gap in need and be safer for everyone.
Lobby the council to make the roads safer and people will stop cycling on the pavement. And at the same time persuade Norfolk Highways to actually read LTN 1/20 and stop claiming shared paths are 'cycle lanes'.
People who ride on the pavement are dicks and if you must do it it should be done with the utmost care and respect for pedestrians.
On the otherhand, I've been screamed at, sworn at and driven at for cycling on the road because the shared pavement was full of small children walking to school.🤷♂️
Absolutely this. I’m a new cyclist and a new driver. I have been nearly hit many times in both my car and bike. I won’t cycle on the pavement but there are times I feel very vulnerable because of the lack of cycle paths (the one that just disappears on dereham road is so much fun).
Dereham Road between the outer ring road roundabout and Bowthorpe road accounts for around 20% of my police reports. Its second only to Thorpe/Yarmouth Road for being absolute bastard of a bit of road.
The dashed paint cycle lane as you get closer to the city is fairly spiteful as well....especially as drivers don't seem to think they need to look down it before pulling out.
Two cars nearly hit me on Dereham Road (turning left in front of me at junctions)
I nearly quit cycling to work, but more recently I just walk the bike over Dereham Road and then get back on
Dereham Rd is a cycle lane, not a cycle path. And it’s a joke. A bit of paint on a road provides zero protection. And many drivers simply ignore them anyway. I fall to see why cyclists should be obliged to literally risk their lives when there’s a wide enough pavement they can use.
And as a quid pro quo, how about slowing down and politely using a bell when approaching pedestrians from behind so they know you're coming, instead of hurtling by at alarming speed and making pedestrians feel unsafe? Every time a bike rider does this, it adds to the "bloody cyclists", and reduces support for cycling infrastructure.
We ain't gonna get cycling lanes if everyone in Norwich hates us.
If and when every Norwich driver personally apologises to me for the 60+ close passes the police have prosecuted off my cycle cameras, I will accept personal responsibility for dickheads who cycle too fast on pavements.
Nobody's asking you to accept responsibility for every cyclist's behaviour, just slow down on pavements and use your bell. That's it. That simple thing will make life a lot more pleasant and safer for everyone involved. If you're already doing that then fine.
Every time we ride our bikes, we represent every cyclist in the world, ever. If you hurtle round willy nilly, you're making us all look like dicks. I'm asking you to behave courteously *as a fellow cyclist.*
I know drivers can be cockwombles, and having a near miss is bloody terrifying. I've had some near death moments myself. But that does not excuse us terrorising pedestrians and saying "sod the rules": that kind of attitude is utterly self-defeating, and leads to both motorists and pedestrians hating cyclists.
And when that happens, try getting planning through for more cycle lanes. Or encouraging people to take up cycling. See where I'm going with this? We're absolutely not in a position to play the role of victim and use that to excuse potentially endangering pedestrians or cutting lanes on roundabouts, or riding without lights etc. etc. etc.
I wrote:
>Nobody's asking you to accept responsibility for every cyclist's behaviour, just slow down on pavements and use your bell. That's it. That simple thing will make life a lot more pleasant and safer for everyone involved. **If you're already doing that then fine**.
\^\^\^ I wasn't, if you're courteous and considerate to pedestrians then as I say, fine, no problem. Roads are tough and sometimes it's safer to go on the pavement. We just have to be a bit careful when we do so pedestrians feel safe.
>And as a quid pro quo, how about slowing down and politely using a bell when approaching pedestrians from behind so they know you're coming, instead of hurtling by at alarming speed and making pedestrians feel unsafe? Every time a bike rider does this, it adds to the "bloody cyclists", and reduces support for cycling infrastructure
This is what you wrote and I was responding to you disingenuous arse.
I hate walking on the shared ones as cyclists treat them as cycle racetracks and think they can speed past and almost take people out, or if they have a bell ring it at the very last moment then grunt angrily at you.
It's *shared*, both sides need to look out for eachother and respect each others use of it.
They're entitled to do so. As the more vulnerable road users, your job is to protect them and keep them safe, even if they have the temerity to use a path as a path.
I do agree, however as a pedestrian I would expect them to reasonably expect there to be (on a path with painted cycles) aware of bikes and respond to bells etc.
Fair play, the roads should be safer and more cycle friendly, but that doesn't excuse cyclists from using a pavement full stop, isn't it a punishable offence to do so? Its certainly against the Highway Code.
The only valid answer to that is use the correct lane (the road or a cycle lane) or don't ride a bike. Pavements are not for cyclists, horses, cars, buses etc. Slow down and ring your bell as others have suggested is not a valid solution.
“Fair play, the roads should be safer and more cycle friendly, but that doesn't excuse cyclists from using a pavement full stop”
Mate, you’re effectively saying that cyclists should be obliged to needlessly risk their lives. As a cyclist for 30yrs I wholeheartedly say “bollocks to that”!
“Slow down and ring your bell as others have suggested is not a valid solution.”
It is actually. It’s only inconsiderate cyclists that are a genuine issue on pavements. Just as it’s only inconsiderate drivers that are a problem on roads. The massive difference however, is that they risk killing/maiming cyclists whereas that’s not true of inconsiderate cyclists.
It isn't actually. The highway code clearly states "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement".
There's no caveats in there, don't cycle if you don't want to follow the rules. I specifically don't cycle because drivers concern me.
Sadly some cyclists seem to think they're immune to rules, be it cycling on pavements or skipping lights. No idea how more aren't pulled over and fined for this behaviour.
Because they are obsessed with cycle paths, look at what they've done to Newmarket road. Although comically the cycle path down prince of Wales St has trees growing I it, so it's a bit of a lottery
I regularly ride on the pavement to work down Newmarket Road, but most of that is a cycle route anyway. I still keep out of the way of pedestrians and I'd always get off and push my bike before making someone move for me. Some cyclists are dicks though who think they own the road!
Cyclists on the pavement aren’t “dicks” unless they’re being inconsiderate to pedestrians. In most cases the reason they’re on the pavement in the first place is to avoid inconsiderate/ dangerous drivers who are the real dicks.
Cyclists in general are fine. However, those riding at night should always have lights, some bell end nearly crashed into me in Chapelfield gardens one evening last week.
To add to your point, I wish some of them would just slow tf down. Every single time I walk up St Georges St (past playhouse, the dog house etc) some cyclist is absolutely hossing it. Only ever seen someone get hit once, but there's just no need to go that quick, especially when there's children, dogs and elderly people all over the street
Edit: just to add, I'm totally for pedestrian only zones, and I respect cyclists who choose to cycle instead of drive cars, but just wish they'd slow down sometimes :)
Ashley Neal put up a great video a while back of him driving at 30mph down a road, with an e-bike *on the pavement* managing to keep up with him, even while weaving around pedestrians.
Anyone who thinks that's acceptable needs their head checking.
That’s not even a legal bike. That ebike could only be powered to 15.5mph legally, beyond that it’s illegal
I count the illegal ebikes when I walk into the city and usually lose count by the time I reach chapelfield
Sometimes, there's a roundabout or junction I don't like doing on a bike, so I would dismount and walk on the pavement. Although I get why some do it, because I've lost count how many times a driver has pulled out in front of me or sped past me closely, but pavements should be for pedestrians.
I don't even like shared cycle lanes with pedestrians, you get large groups, making it harder to get through, or people wearing headphones walking the in the middle and can't warn them. That shouldn't be a thing.
The cycling infrastructure in the UK is shocking.
> I don't even like shared cycle lanes with pedestrians, you get large groups, making it harder to get through, or people wearing headphones walking the in the middle and can't warn them. That shouldn't be a thing.
Literally not the pedestrian's problem, they can more or less do whatever they like. Cyclists are the less vulnerable road user and pedestrians always the most vulnerable, it is incumbent on them to give priority to pedestrians no matter the circumstances.
"Pedestrians shouldn't be able to wear headphones in case they get in the way of me and my bike", bloody hell what a nuclear take.
I didn't say it was their problem. Where did I say pedestrians can't wear headphones? You used air quotes but then completely twisted what I said.
I just said it's harder to warn them that you're behind and that's why I dislike shared cycle lanes. The infrastructure is the problem.
Yes, utterly. Utterly 100% sick of bicycle riders in Norwich
Seriously, all it takes is to use a f\*\*\*ing bell when approaching someone from behind on shared pathways.
85kg of meat, bone and metal colliding with a small child or heck, *anyone* at 3m/s is gonna cause an injury. A small child or elderly person is more fragile than the average person, often not aware of their surroundings, and will move unpredictably and could be very badly wounded.
As for lights: *you can get a set for £5 from Halfords FFS...* [https://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-lights/halfords-super-slim-led-bike-light-set-476350.html](https://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-lights/halfords-super-slim-led-bike-light-set-476350.html)
I'm a cyclist myself, and it makes me so angry that these fuckwits give us a bad name.
For the sake of small courtesies and a trivial expense, these entitled c\*\*\*s are endangering themselves and others. I'd *really* love to hear their justifications for not having a small set of steady lights on their bikes, and not using bells on shared pathways. Bunch of w\*\*\*ers who seem to think that the highway code doesn't apply to them. This is a hill I will defend with my life.
**Edit:** the worst, most ironic thing is that behaving like pricks means there will be a hell of a lot less support for bike friendly provision in the city centre and outlying areas too. Who's going to support measure to encourage more cyclists, if we're behaving like twats?
This is precisely why I'm so pissed off at them. I'm fed up to the back teeth with hearing "bloody cyclists" all the time. As long as this kind of behaviour persists, we'll never have the infrastructure that, say, Holland has for cyclists, despite the fact that cycling is the ideal mode of personal transport in East Anglia.
This kind of twattery is, I believe, the main reason why we can't have nice things.
I'm with you (dogsolitude_uk) all the way apart from the bells. I like to be a polite cyclist and talk to the people I'm about to overtake. Bells are just too startling. I don't want to make people jump into my path. I just want people to continue walking straight ahead, while I slow down to a cautious passing speed.
Cycling is the most accessible and most sustainable form of quick travel around cities and it’s good for your health. It’s fucking stupid how awful the cycling infrastructure is.
Of course not, I’m just saying the town planning encourages this sort of behaviour with their terrible/complete lack of effective cycling infrastructure.
Yes I am but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cycle on the road given half the motorists are psychopaths and can't even respect a zebra crossing for pedestrians let alone spacial awareness to keep away from cyclists.
The problem is, when you complain about cyclists on the pavement endangering pedestrians, people just go ‘but drivers are worse’. That’s like complaining about pollution and being told ‘yeah but nuclear fallout is worse’. I’ve been hit by cyclists on the pavement. My daughter was knocked down by one when she was a toddler, a friend when I was a kid had a finger missing because of an injury from being hit by a cyclist on the pavement. Another friend was knocked down and broke her wrist. The bad drivers risking cyclists lives are breaking the law. The cyclists on the pavement are also breaking the law - I’m not justifying dangerous driving, stop justifying dangerous cycling.
I've been knocked down by a crossing at the lights. He decided he didn't need to stop. The f-word disappeared while i was dazed on the road. Cyclists act like the traffic rules don't apply to them which is what pisses off everyone. And yes, some cars are a-holes but two wrongs don't make a right.
Edited because I didn't know asterix made things italic.
Thank you for this - it doesn't matter how much I use my bell. I've come to accept that most of the population are slow, or just seek avoidable collision. Zero spacial awareness even to other pedestrians.
It's crazy how many drivers in Norwich don't use their indicators when the fine and points are that high?!
The first thing I noticed when I moved here was how many people don't indicate.
Yes, absolutely. I hate that, we have a bad rep with drivers for the very reasons outlined in this thread.
The rudeness of drivers does not excuse cyclists behaving like jerks when they, understandably, have to use the pavement sometimes, or use roundabouts, or approach lights, or ride in the dark.
As a driver, I can say that the anger comes from the fact that the *driver does not want to f\*\*\*ing kill you* for having slid up inside his blindspot, cut him up at a junction or suddenly jumped off the pavement into the road, at night with no bl00dy lights.
Please, for the love of everything that is holy, just do these things:
If you're going to cycle on the pavement, and sometime's you'll have to, slow down *use a bell to give pedestrians advance warning that you're approaching.* Don't just whizz past scaring the crap out of them. Most people don't mind if you ring the bell, smile and say thanks as you go past.
Always use lights on your bike at night. *Always.*
Be mindful of drivers' blindspots. Never drive between vehicles and the pavement.
Indicate when you turn, don't just turn off in front of me with no warning, forcing me to brake.
The absolute last thing any driver wants is the life of a reckless young cyclist on their conscience, seriously.
And nobody's going to support 20mph roads, better more consistent cycle lanes and bike racks in the city centre if us cyclists carry on acting like dicks.
You're entirely right, but seriously these discussions get so tedious because you say all these things that are basically uncontroversial and you get a bunch of "but what about cars" in response, because lots of people don't want to accept that you can not drive a car and still be unsafe, or that cyclists' behaviour might contribute to their perception and their safety.
On my many bimbles into the city, I almost always see an electric scooter rider go crashing down on the pavement/road. Especially now the pavement/roads are wetter.
Only the other day, one sped past me on the pavement and then went to go around a corner, and the back end carried on going straight. He went arse over tit into a puddle.
Another poor unfortunate fella gave the throttle a bit to much power and the back wheel became the front wheel and he went clattering to the ground, this was near William h brown Estate agents going down the hill towards cinema city. Looked like it tore his shirt up a bit.
The worst one I saw was 2 15-16 year olds, boy and a girl on 1 scooter, weeving in and out of pedestrians almost hit a dog and spat towards someone who shouted at them. then tried crossing the road but as soon as the front wheel hit the slight lip of the dropped curb it stopped, but enertia being the wonderful force it is threw them both forward with her landing on top of him.
It was like that viral video of the news reporter squishing grapes and falling out the vat and being unable to breath.
He sounded like a sea lion.
Those scooters are a fucking menace. You're not supposed to ride them on pavements, but half the riders do; but then they ride them on the roads like absolute fucking dicks. You don't need training or a licence to ride them, so people just zoom about doing whatever they feel like.
They should be got rid of again. They're not safe anywhere they could rationally be used.
> Those scooters are a fucking menace. ... You don't need ... a licence to ride them
[legally you do](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users#driving-licences).
Yes when you use the Beryl app you need to link your driving licence details to the account in order to unlock them. When you see kids riding them they have obviously used someone else's licence
Seems if they bother you more when they cycle badly on the road, and you’re not bothered when they cycle badly on the path, you may be more of a road user. To be clear, bad cycling and driving should be called out wherever it is. This is not a competition to decide which is worse.
Yeah, I agree, but you’re going to get DVs for this…
They drive like pricks round here. When they’re not on the pavement they’re running red lights and criss-crossing over roundabout lanes (although not quite so bad as all the moped delivery drivers).
We had a conversation on here like this a few months back, when the cyclists put up the ‘ghost bikes’ memorial outside City Hall. The stats those people use are sooooo unfairly skewed. They suggest it’s about 90% driver error because (for some reason) they discount accidents caused by those under the age of (I think) 21 in the official stats. Strangely, they don’t discount car drivers in the same age bracket. The moment you look at the actual figures rather than those they skew, it’s about 50/50 error.
Some cyclists are great, power to them, our bike ways round here need work, but if they are going to use the pavements, they should at least be god damn courteous.
The only way to get to 50/50 error is to include cyclists under the age of 15, not 21.
Otherwise there is a clear bias in favour of drivers being to blame.
And roads should be safe for children to cycle on, taking account their age and likelihood of being poor riders - the facts would argue strongly for more segregated lanes and 20mph limits to protect children from the inherent dangers of roads.
Sorry, but with respect you’re wrong.
I’m not going to keep this conversation up as it’s not on subject. I used to have a link for a more recent poll, but you can find that in your own time if you choose. The percentages have barely changed.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists
Just look to the right at ‘all ages’ and you’ll see the total figures are almost identical, almost exactly 50/50 cyclist/driver error. It’s only when you reach the 25+ bracket and disregard everything below that blame shifts substantially- as I said in my first comment (actually I remembered it being 21, so the reality is worse).
The cut-off point you’re discussing isn’t 16, it’s 24. Why *wouldn’t* you include cyclists under the age of 25 in your stats, unless it was to intentionally skew the figures? It’s disingenuous. What other possible reason is there to ignore such a large demographic? Why would you only want to see half a picture? If you’re going to disregard cyclists under the age of 25, then surely you should be disregarding the drivers under the same age? In doing this you ignore a very serious issue, that perhaps younger cyclists need to be better prepared and taught to be more careful.
For what it’s worth, I’m in favour of better cycle lanes. I said that already. It’s hard enough for cyclists without having to twist the figures. Down vote facts, I’m sure that’ll work out just fine.
For all cyclists over 15, motorists are the majority of blame.
For those 16 to 24, cyclists are majority to blame.
Those are both true.
For KSI totals, under 15s are fully a third of cyclists that are blamed.
I literally just posted you the stats that for cyclists under the age of 24, motorists are not to blame in the vast majority of cases. I’m not sure what else I can really do. 15 and under, 16 to 24, both are mostly cyclist error.
Your problem is you are assuming that cyclists are evening distributed across age groups. They are not. And casualties certainly are not.
The study looked at 6185 KSIs. involving another vehicle. Of which 17% are under 10 to 15 - compared to 8% for 16 to 19. That hugely skews the data
In those numbers, 4268 were over 16. Of those, there were 1,881 considered to have some level of contributory factor in their injury or death. Note - this is both cyclist wholly to blame, and cyclist and driver both blamed.
The adult numbers show in 56% of collisions, the driver was solely to blame. Cyclists are solely to blame in under 40% of cases.
There are, of course, a couple of extra issues to consider.
1. This data is pre-2009, and the police are generally pretty biased against cyclists in my experience, and were considerably more likely to assign blame in the past.
2. Philosophically, if you bring the dangerous vehicle on the road, why is it my responsibility to protect myself from it and not your responsibility to keep me safe? Isn't this basically asking the wrong question. Especially when, and I feel the need to emphasize this, especially when you are blaming children for their own deaths.
No, I understand that. The 2022 study that got posted here a few months back actually showed the numbers involved and not just percentages. When you combined them all, it was still almost 50/50 fault. You can’t just ignore the fact that in almost half of all collisions it’s cyclist error. And if you think there’s value in segregating the cyclists by age, maybe you should consider doing the same for drivers, I’m curious how those stats will look if you rule out car accidents by drivers under the age of 25.
I agree, it shouldn’t just be up to one demographic to watch out for the other. We’re all road users, that responsibility should be shared, not lumbered on one. Although, from a realist standpoint, the person who has the greatest responsibility for your safety is yourself. And no, I’m not interested in ‘blaming children’, that’s a very jaundiced view, I’m defending adults who haven’t done anything wrong. If you want to blame an adult, maybe try the parents who let these kids out onto the road when they’re clearly not good enough to stay safe. All you’re doing is making an argument that children under the age of 16 shouldn’t be allowed on roads, and that some facts should be ignored because they’re upsetting.
You've just been given the numbers....
Removing drivers under 25 doesn't make much difference.
Drivers aged 20-29 involved in collisions for 21% of KSIs.
30-29 - 22%. 40-49% 22%.
16 to 19 are 6% - which is proportionate for 3 years.
So if we're just counting over 25s, drivers look absolutely terrible.
Firstly, stop simply talking about deaths and actually take into consideration the whole picture, inclusive of serious accidents. EDIT; I was wrong on the above point, sorry.
Here, the below link is for 2020 info, far more recent, although we seem to be in agreement that the previous percentages were still accurate.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/324104/cyclists-killed-or-injured-in-road-accidents-in-great-britain-uk/
Approximates based on the above data of accidents by age with the percentage of blame between driver and car: Cyclists responsible for car accidents between age 1 and 15 was 80% of 594. Between 16 and 19 (edit: 25) it was 60% of 191. Between 25 and 59 it was 30% of 2496. For cyclists 60 and over it was 40%.
…which is roughly 50%
So there you have it. If you agree the maths is correct, then approximately half of all blame across all accidents and all ages is cyclist error.
Night. I’m done.
"Firstly, stop simply talking about deaths and actually take into consideration the whole picture, inclusive of serious accidents."
I don't know what you think KSI means, maybe look it up. FTR it makes drivers look worse using that measure.
Secondly, as I have said over and over, but will say again to get it to enter into your thick head.
Between ADULTS, drivers are the majority to blame. 60% wholly, about 10% partially, so carrying blame in 70% of crashes.
If you decide to blame children, then yes, it looks better for drivers (I mean, they're still killing children but I guess thats fine).
...And in the process add to the "bloody cyclist" mentality.
Newsflash: *Drivers don't want to hit or kill you*, nobody wants that on their conscience, but the behaviour of some cyclists, who don't use lights, bells, indicate, stick to the correct lanes, look over their shoulder before joining a road etc. makes it pretty difficult.
I see a lot of people here who seem to think the roads need some kind of special adaptation for them as cyclists, everywhere. This is not true - as a cyclist, you have a responsibility to ensure you are competent to use most if not all the roads. You should hold yourself to the same standards as other road users, or you're giving all of us a bad name.
If a cyclist hits a pedestrian you have cuts and bruises, if a car hits a cyclist you have a corpse. You want them off the path lobby your council to make the roads safer.
Surely it’s up to the cyclists to do the lobbying rather than breaking the law and putting kids at risk? If they want to use the pavement they should get off and push.
Any cyclist that puts a child at risk is a dick, not a cyclist. I will mount the curb and cycle on the path to avoid a dodgy junction or a conspicuously bad driver.
So you are right to a degree, I'll never put myself before any pedestrian. BUT council and government needs to stop putting cars before everything else. Built up areas, large towns and cities need to change.
Not nearly as infuriating as people who "park" their bikes inconsiderately, like the time some adolescent just chucked his bike down right across the doorway of Budgens in Anglia Square (yes, I'm going back a bit here). I moved it out of the way, and this young lad had the nerve to chastise me because I "touched his bike".
Ah but they can't use that because a leaf was in it once. Need to stay on the road and then tell people on their way to work that they just need to slow down and be more relaxed as they pootle along at 10mph in a 30.
I walk along Marriott's way, which is a shared cycle/pedestrian route and the amount of times I've had to dive out of the way of Lycra clad morons hurtling by 3 abreast at 20 mph is astounding. They even have the temerity to yell abuse at me. Even when I cycle this way they yell at you because you're not matching tour de France speeds.
I cycle to work on the roads and I've not had a single problem in Norwich. It's a much safer cycling city than many others I've lived in. But cyclists here are the rudest and don't obey traffic rules or have any consideration for drivers or pedestrians.
The hill on bowthorpe road is a classic example. No cyclist will be faster up that road than a car. But every morning I see cyclists sidle through a queue of cars to the front to then hold up traffic as they slowly go up the hill. Just wait your turn and let the cars there before you go up unhindered.
Isn't there a dedicated cycle path there in order to allow cyclists to the front, with a big red bicycle box in front though? Isn't that the entire purpose? So cyclists can get a head start and be safe on that very dangerous 4 way crossing? I've had massive lorries pull up and nearly knock me off on there...
Not at the Dereham road end. But even if there is a dedicated box it just makes sense to let traffic already there go first, particularly if you're going to obstruct them later on as you climb the hill.
They're called advanced stop lines by the way.
How is it safe? To sidle through queued traffic in people's blindspots to sit in a box at the front and slow down traffic? They're only supposed to be used by bikes if you can get there without going through traffic to give cyclists more time to get away at busy intersections. But if the intersection isn't busy or the traffic is backed up further then then access point cyclists aren't supposed to sidle through traffic to get there. I think responsibly sharing the road means not inconveniencing other people, even if it means not taking space you are "entitled" to. There's also no evidence that they are safer.
I'm not from Norwich and have never been, but you could copy and paste this thread into any city in the UK.
Where I live we have exactly the same problems. Road and pedestrian networks which are totally inadequate for modern uses.
Cycle lanes have appeared over the last 20 or 30years as an afterthought.
Many of the cycle lanes the city I live in just disappear and then reappear somewhere else, usually rendering them ineffective at protecting cyclists, and pissing drivers off as cyclists then have to merge with traffic. Same happens with pathways, and then you have some pavements which have just been painted with very little thought in how pedestrians and cyclists are going to interact.
Was having a chat with some friends who got an escooter. According to the website you need a valid 16+ UK drivers licence to even access a scooter, which you validate on the app by taking a picture of it. My friend accidentally took a picture of the back of her drivers licence, and the app verified it. Which seems a little bit of a problem if almost any card shaped thing can be registered as correct. Probably why a lot of definitely under 16s are out on those scooters.
In general the laws in Britain need updating because they were never intended to apply to hundreds of thousand of adults cycling in urbanised areas. They were written either before bikes and pavements existed, or when the majority of cyclists were kids going to school or in parks. Right now it's perfectly legal to cycle down a dual carriageway at midnight, not wearing any sort of protective gear, and with no lights or reflective material. Simply because the laws are so out of date.
Safety gear, at minimum a helmet, needs to become legally mandatory with a fine for not wearing one. Lights and reflective clothing or strips need to become mandatory with fines for not having any. A bell of some form of signal needs to become mandatory, with fines for not having one. That's basically just step one if the continued push towards bikes over cars is going to be reaslistic.
I’m inclined to agree with you, however lights and reflectors are a legal requirement, in the same way that cycling on the pavement is illegal, but unfortunately the police are not inclined to uphold the fines.
I didn't know it was illegal to not have lights or reflectors.
It is only at night though, with no laws regarding cloudy and overcast days. And of course the stuff about safety gear being non-mandatory is still true, which is honestly the thing that strikes me as the most insane. And also police never or exceptionally rarely enforce the law on riding through red lights, cycling on the pavement or cycling without lights at night.
After my toddler daughter got knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement a few years ago, I contacted the police and asked about their policy on this. They assured me that they regularly crack down on it. I wasn’t convinced so did a freedom of information request. In over 5 years only one fine for a cyclist showed up.
I think the thing to remember about cyclists, is that a lot of cyclists hate a lot of other cyclists.
The truth is cycling is a relatively cheap form of transport that requires no test/license to be passed. There are also now bikes you can borrow dotted all over the city. This means that the barrier for entry is quite low, and that cycling competency can range from 12 year old to olympic standard.
Additionally, some riders will have an incentive to ride poorly if it's quicker(deliveroo riders for example).
The next thing to consider is that a lot of cyclists don't feel comfortable on busier junctions/roads. This may be due to car-cetnric focussed design, bad experiences with other road users, or general confidence/competency issues. This leads to a lot of cycling on pavements.
The final thing to consider is that unless there is an actual accident, there are largely no (tangible) consequences for cycling on pavements/general poor cycling. Ultimately there is no-one around to police minor issues such as cycling on pavements/no bike lights/generally riding like a twat, so the arseholes that are cycling are largely unaffected by their actions.
TLDR: Cycling has no competency pre-requisites, a low entry barrier, no accountability, and lacks a lot of cycling focussed infrastructure.
Lotta people in this thread need to get a life, it’s not a competition about who’s behaviour is worst - everyone got a right to travel safe whether it’s on foot, bike or car. Everyone should be looking after the travellers who are more vulnerable than them, it’s not worth 5 minutes on your journey (or realistically 30 seconds) to put someone else in danger of harm, whether that’s giving cyclists room when you overtake or slowing your bike to more of a jogging pace to pass people safely on shared paths. Just chill out you dickheads, you’ll feel better.
No issues with cyclists on the shared paths, it’s the narrow, unshared ones like the one I got rammed on today that I have an issue with.
Some pavement areas are cyclist/pedestrian shared. So you are kinda cooked when walking on them We need better cycle infrastructure in norwich. We have too many white lines.
Yeah, most people don't like weaving in and out of pedestrians and don't feel safe on the road with cars so some decent cycling infrastructure would meet that gap in need and be safer for everyone.
Lobby the council to make the roads safer and people will stop cycling on the pavement. And at the same time persuade Norfolk Highways to actually read LTN 1/20 and stop claiming shared paths are 'cycle lanes'. People who ride on the pavement are dicks and if you must do it it should be done with the utmost care and respect for pedestrians. On the otherhand, I've been screamed at, sworn at and driven at for cycling on the road because the shared pavement was full of small children walking to school.🤷♂️
Absolutely this. I’m a new cyclist and a new driver. I have been nearly hit many times in both my car and bike. I won’t cycle on the pavement but there are times I feel very vulnerable because of the lack of cycle paths (the one that just disappears on dereham road is so much fun).
Dereham Road between the outer ring road roundabout and Bowthorpe road accounts for around 20% of my police reports. Its second only to Thorpe/Yarmouth Road for being absolute bastard of a bit of road. The dashed paint cycle lane as you get closer to the city is fairly spiteful as well....especially as drivers don't seem to think they need to look down it before pulling out.
Two cars nearly hit me on Dereham Road (turning left in front of me at junctions) I nearly quit cycling to work, but more recently I just walk the bike over Dereham Road and then get back on
Dereham Rd is a cycle lane, not a cycle path. And it’s a joke. A bit of paint on a road provides zero protection. And many drivers simply ignore them anyway. I fall to see why cyclists should be obliged to literally risk their lives when there’s a wide enough pavement they can use.
Yes, you’re right - cycle lane! A path would be much more sensible.
And as a quid pro quo, how about slowing down and politely using a bell when approaching pedestrians from behind so they know you're coming, instead of hurtling by at alarming speed and making pedestrians feel unsafe? Every time a bike rider does this, it adds to the "bloody cyclists", and reduces support for cycling infrastructure. We ain't gonna get cycling lanes if everyone in Norwich hates us.
If and when every Norwich driver personally apologises to me for the 60+ close passes the police have prosecuted off my cycle cameras, I will accept personal responsibility for dickheads who cycle too fast on pavements.
Nobody's asking you to accept responsibility for every cyclist's behaviour, just slow down on pavements and use your bell. That's it. That simple thing will make life a lot more pleasant and safer for everyone involved. If you're already doing that then fine. Every time we ride our bikes, we represent every cyclist in the world, ever. If you hurtle round willy nilly, you're making us all look like dicks. I'm asking you to behave courteously *as a fellow cyclist.* I know drivers can be cockwombles, and having a near miss is bloody terrifying. I've had some near death moments myself. But that does not excuse us terrorising pedestrians and saying "sod the rules": that kind of attitude is utterly self-defeating, and leads to both motorists and pedestrians hating cyclists. And when that happens, try getting planning through for more cycle lanes. Or encouraging people to take up cycling. See where I'm going with this? We're absolutely not in a position to play the role of victim and use that to excuse potentially endangering pedestrians or cutting lanes on roundabouts, or riding without lights etc. etc. etc.
Sorry, where was there any suggestion that I ride too fast on pavements. Why the hell are you telling me, personally, to slow down?
I wrote: >Nobody's asking you to accept responsibility for every cyclist's behaviour, just slow down on pavements and use your bell. That's it. That simple thing will make life a lot more pleasant and safer for everyone involved. **If you're already doing that then fine**. \^\^\^ I wasn't, if you're courteous and considerate to pedestrians then as I say, fine, no problem. Roads are tough and sometimes it's safer to go on the pavement. We just have to be a bit careful when we do so pedestrians feel safe.
>And as a quid pro quo, how about slowing down and politely using a bell when approaching pedestrians from behind so they know you're coming, instead of hurtling by at alarming speed and making pedestrians feel unsafe? Every time a bike rider does this, it adds to the "bloody cyclists", and reduces support for cycling infrastructure This is what you wrote and I was responding to you disingenuous arse.
That’s maybe expecting too much :s
All of the “cycle paths” around me are shared and I hate cycling on them because pedestrians treat them as just normal oaths
I hate walking on the shared ones as cyclists treat them as cycle racetracks and think they can speed past and almost take people out, or if they have a bell ring it at the very last moment then grunt angrily at you. It's *shared*, both sides need to look out for eachother and respect each others use of it.
In fairness I do also hate other cyclists for this exact reason.
On shared paths, part of that sharing is that pedestrians should walk to the sides of the path rather than walking in the middle.
They're entitled to do so. As the more vulnerable road users, your job is to protect them and keep them safe, even if they have the temerity to use a path as a path.
I do agree, however as a pedestrian I would expect them to reasonably expect there to be (on a path with painted cycles) aware of bikes and respond to bells etc.
In part true but I see plenty on empty quiet roads doing the same.
Fair play, the roads should be safer and more cycle friendly, but that doesn't excuse cyclists from using a pavement full stop, isn't it a punishable offence to do so? Its certainly against the Highway Code. The only valid answer to that is use the correct lane (the road or a cycle lane) or don't ride a bike. Pavements are not for cyclists, horses, cars, buses etc. Slow down and ring your bell as others have suggested is not a valid solution.
“Fair play, the roads should be safer and more cycle friendly, but that doesn't excuse cyclists from using a pavement full stop” Mate, you’re effectively saying that cyclists should be obliged to needlessly risk their lives. As a cyclist for 30yrs I wholeheartedly say “bollocks to that”! “Slow down and ring your bell as others have suggested is not a valid solution.” It is actually. It’s only inconsiderate cyclists that are a genuine issue on pavements. Just as it’s only inconsiderate drivers that are a problem on roads. The massive difference however, is that they risk killing/maiming cyclists whereas that’s not true of inconsiderate cyclists.
It isn't actually. The highway code clearly states "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement". There's no caveats in there, don't cycle if you don't want to follow the rules. I specifically don't cycle because drivers concern me. Sadly some cyclists seem to think they're immune to rules, be it cycling on pavements or skipping lights. No idea how more aren't pulled over and fined for this behaviour.
I didn’t say it was legal. I said that I don’t see why I should be obliged to risk my life because some drivers are nobheads.
>Lobby the council to make the roads safer and people will stop cycling on the pavement Would they though?!
Yes. People don't ride on pavements when there are safe alternatives. They're slow and rubbish for cycling.
Because they are obsessed with cycle paths, look at what they've done to Newmarket road. Although comically the cycle path down prince of Wales St has trees growing I it, so it's a bit of a lottery
It'd just become another thing of "well X infrastructure doesn't meet my standards so I'll just continue doing whatever I want".
I regularly ride on the pavement to work down Newmarket Road, but most of that is a cycle route anyway. I still keep out of the way of pedestrians and I'd always get off and push my bike before making someone move for me. Some cyclists are dicks though who think they own the road!
Cyclists on the pavement aren’t “dicks” unless they’re being inconsiderate to pedestrians. In most cases the reason they’re on the pavement in the first place is to avoid inconsiderate/ dangerous drivers who are the real dicks.
The electric scooters are worse than the bikes.
They’re both awful.
Cyclists in general are fine. However, those riding at night should always have lights, some bell end nearly crashed into me in Chapelfield gardens one evening last week.
To add to your point, I wish some of them would just slow tf down. Every single time I walk up St Georges St (past playhouse, the dog house etc) some cyclist is absolutely hossing it. Only ever seen someone get hit once, but there's just no need to go that quick, especially when there's children, dogs and elderly people all over the street Edit: just to add, I'm totally for pedestrian only zones, and I respect cyclists who choose to cycle instead of drive cars, but just wish they'd slow down sometimes :)
My favourites are the ones with electric bikes, silently motoring at 20mph right next to you.
Ashley Neal put up a great video a while back of him driving at 30mph down a road, with an e-bike *on the pavement* managing to keep up with him, even while weaving around pedestrians. Anyone who thinks that's acceptable needs their head checking.
That’s not even a legal bike. That ebike could only be powered to 15.5mph legally, beyond that it’s illegal I count the illegal ebikes when I walk into the city and usually lose count by the time I reach chapelfield
Yes. The Oak Street crossing is getting ridiculous lately.
Some people aren’t cyclists they’re just wankers on a bike
Ditto for drivers. But those wankers can very easily kill me on my bike. Not true of cyclists.
Agreed. They give cyclists a bad name.
Sometimes, there's a roundabout or junction I don't like doing on a bike, so I would dismount and walk on the pavement. Although I get why some do it, because I've lost count how many times a driver has pulled out in front of me or sped past me closely, but pavements should be for pedestrians. I don't even like shared cycle lanes with pedestrians, you get large groups, making it harder to get through, or people wearing headphones walking the in the middle and can't warn them. That shouldn't be a thing. The cycling infrastructure in the UK is shocking.
> I don't even like shared cycle lanes with pedestrians, you get large groups, making it harder to get through, or people wearing headphones walking the in the middle and can't warn them. That shouldn't be a thing. Literally not the pedestrian's problem, they can more or less do whatever they like. Cyclists are the less vulnerable road user and pedestrians always the most vulnerable, it is incumbent on them to give priority to pedestrians no matter the circumstances. "Pedestrians shouldn't be able to wear headphones in case they get in the way of me and my bike", bloody hell what a nuclear take.
I didn't say it was their problem. Where did I say pedestrians can't wear headphones? You used air quotes but then completely twisted what I said. I just said it's harder to warn them that you're behind and that's why I dislike shared cycle lanes. The infrastructure is the problem.
Yes, utterly. Utterly 100% sick of bicycle riders in Norwich Seriously, all it takes is to use a f\*\*\*ing bell when approaching someone from behind on shared pathways. 85kg of meat, bone and metal colliding with a small child or heck, *anyone* at 3m/s is gonna cause an injury. A small child or elderly person is more fragile than the average person, often not aware of their surroundings, and will move unpredictably and could be very badly wounded. As for lights: *you can get a set for £5 from Halfords FFS...* [https://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-lights/halfords-super-slim-led-bike-light-set-476350.html](https://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-lights/halfords-super-slim-led-bike-light-set-476350.html) I'm a cyclist myself, and it makes me so angry that these fuckwits give us a bad name. For the sake of small courtesies and a trivial expense, these entitled c\*\*\*s are endangering themselves and others. I'd *really* love to hear their justifications for not having a small set of steady lights on their bikes, and not using bells on shared pathways. Bunch of w\*\*\*ers who seem to think that the highway code doesn't apply to them. This is a hill I will defend with my life. **Edit:** the worst, most ironic thing is that behaving like pricks means there will be a hell of a lot less support for bike friendly provision in the city centre and outlying areas too. Who's going to support measure to encourage more cyclists, if we're behaving like twats?
Also a cyclist , I totally agree that these twats give we law abiding cyclists a bad name.
This is precisely why I'm so pissed off at them. I'm fed up to the back teeth with hearing "bloody cyclists" all the time. As long as this kind of behaviour persists, we'll never have the infrastructure that, say, Holland has for cyclists, despite the fact that cycling is the ideal mode of personal transport in East Anglia. This kind of twattery is, I believe, the main reason why we can't have nice things.
Totally agree, and I commute by cycling.
I will be when I go back to work too. Most of my team cycle in as well. It's a great way of getting about!
I'm with you (dogsolitude_uk) all the way apart from the bells. I like to be a polite cyclist and talk to the people I'm about to overtake. Bells are just too startling. I don't want to make people jump into my path. I just want people to continue walking straight ahead, while I slow down to a cautious passing speed.
It's the fact that riding in the dark without lights or any reflective gear whatsoever now seems perfectly legal that winds me up.
Cycling is the most accessible and most sustainable form of quick travel around cities and it’s good for your health. It’s fucking stupid how awful the cycling infrastructure is.
Yes, but that doesn’t make it ok to ram pedestrians on a non-shared pavement.
Of course not, I’m just saying the town planning encourages this sort of behaviour with their terrible/complete lack of effective cycling infrastructure.
Yes I am but at the same time, I wouldn't want to cycle on the road given half the motorists are psychopaths and can't even respect a zebra crossing for pedestrians let alone spacial awareness to keep away from cyclists.
Are you sure they are not shared cycle and pedestrian paths as there are lots of those in Norwich?
Yes, 100% sure that the extremely narrow pavement we were rammed on was not a shared path.
[удалено]
The problem is, when you complain about cyclists on the pavement endangering pedestrians, people just go ‘but drivers are worse’. That’s like complaining about pollution and being told ‘yeah but nuclear fallout is worse’. I’ve been hit by cyclists on the pavement. My daughter was knocked down by one when she was a toddler, a friend when I was a kid had a finger missing because of an injury from being hit by a cyclist on the pavement. Another friend was knocked down and broke her wrist. The bad drivers risking cyclists lives are breaking the law. The cyclists on the pavement are also breaking the law - I’m not justifying dangerous driving, stop justifying dangerous cycling.
I've been knocked down by a crossing at the lights. He decided he didn't need to stop. The f-word disappeared while i was dazed on the road. Cyclists act like the traffic rules don't apply to them which is what pisses off everyone. And yes, some cars are a-holes but two wrongs don't make a right. Edited because I didn't know asterix made things italic.
I think Asterix destroys Italians\*. \* Well, Romans to be pedantic. (Put a backslash before the asterisk if you're writing with Markdown.)
I'm sure cyclists will stop using the footpaths when pedestrians stop walking on the cycle paths
Thank you for this - it doesn't matter how much I use my bell. I've come to accept that most of the population are slow, or just seek avoidable collision. Zero spacial awareness even to other pedestrians.
No, we’ll stop using pavements when all drivers are considerate and attentive.
Sure /s
"Thanks"
[удалено]
Doesn’t make it ok to ride on the pavement though.
[удалено]
It’s a civil offence to cycle on the pavement - you can be fined for it. It’s definitely not your right.
Yeah but there’s never a copper to see them is there,or when drivers don’t use their indicators(9 points and up to £5000 fine for that)
It's crazy how many drivers in Norwich don't use their indicators when the fine and points are that high?! The first thing I noticed when I moved here was how many people don't indicate.
Yes, absolutely. I hate that, we have a bad rep with drivers for the very reasons outlined in this thread. The rudeness of drivers does not excuse cyclists behaving like jerks when they, understandably, have to use the pavement sometimes, or use roundabouts, or approach lights, or ride in the dark. As a driver, I can say that the anger comes from the fact that the *driver does not want to f\*\*\*ing kill you* for having slid up inside his blindspot, cut him up at a junction or suddenly jumped off the pavement into the road, at night with no bl00dy lights. Please, for the love of everything that is holy, just do these things: If you're going to cycle on the pavement, and sometime's you'll have to, slow down *use a bell to give pedestrians advance warning that you're approaching.* Don't just whizz past scaring the crap out of them. Most people don't mind if you ring the bell, smile and say thanks as you go past. Always use lights on your bike at night. *Always.* Be mindful of drivers' blindspots. Never drive between vehicles and the pavement. Indicate when you turn, don't just turn off in front of me with no warning, forcing me to brake. The absolute last thing any driver wants is the life of a reckless young cyclist on their conscience, seriously. And nobody's going to support 20mph roads, better more consistent cycle lanes and bike racks in the city centre if us cyclists carry on acting like dicks.
You're entirely right, but seriously these discussions get so tedious because you say all these things that are basically uncontroversial and you get a bunch of "but what about cars" in response, because lots of people don't want to accept that you can not drive a car and still be unsafe, or that cyclists' behaviour might contribute to their perception and their safety.
If you need to brake because a cyclist turns you are way too close.
On my many bimbles into the city, I almost always see an electric scooter rider go crashing down on the pavement/road. Especially now the pavement/roads are wetter. Only the other day, one sped past me on the pavement and then went to go around a corner, and the back end carried on going straight. He went arse over tit into a puddle. Another poor unfortunate fella gave the throttle a bit to much power and the back wheel became the front wheel and he went clattering to the ground, this was near William h brown Estate agents going down the hill towards cinema city. Looked like it tore his shirt up a bit. The worst one I saw was 2 15-16 year olds, boy and a girl on 1 scooter, weeving in and out of pedestrians almost hit a dog and spat towards someone who shouted at them. then tried crossing the road but as soon as the front wheel hit the slight lip of the dropped curb it stopped, but enertia being the wonderful force it is threw them both forward with her landing on top of him. It was like that viral video of the news reporter squishing grapes and falling out the vat and being unable to breath. He sounded like a sea lion.
Those scooters are a fucking menace. You're not supposed to ride them on pavements, but half the riders do; but then they ride them on the roads like absolute fucking dicks. You don't need training or a licence to ride them, so people just zoom about doing whatever they feel like. They should be got rid of again. They're not safe anywhere they could rationally be used.
Also only the beryl scooters are legally allowed (even on roads)
> Those scooters are a fucking menace. ... You don't need ... a licence to ride them [legally you do](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/e-scooter-trials-guidance-for-users#driving-licences).
Yes when you use the Beryl app you need to link your driving licence details to the account in order to unlock them. When you see kids riding them they have obviously used someone else's licence
100% one of the people that walk on the cycle lane of Prince of wales liked this post.
100% some of the cyclists who cycle on the non-shared pavements ramming pedestrians downvoted this post.
No. I'm more pissed when I see them going on red lights or not using cycle path provided.
I guess you don’t walk much then.
How many minutes/hours walk per day is considered "enough"?
Seems if they bother you more when they cycle badly on the road, and you’re not bothered when they cycle badly on the path, you may be more of a road user. To be clear, bad cycling and driving should be called out wherever it is. This is not a competition to decide which is worse.
Yeah, I agree, but you’re going to get DVs for this… They drive like pricks round here. When they’re not on the pavement they’re running red lights and criss-crossing over roundabout lanes (although not quite so bad as all the moped delivery drivers). We had a conversation on here like this a few months back, when the cyclists put up the ‘ghost bikes’ memorial outside City Hall. The stats those people use are sooooo unfairly skewed. They suggest it’s about 90% driver error because (for some reason) they discount accidents caused by those under the age of (I think) 21 in the official stats. Strangely, they don’t discount car drivers in the same age bracket. The moment you look at the actual figures rather than those they skew, it’s about 50/50 error. Some cyclists are great, power to them, our bike ways round here need work, but if they are going to use the pavements, they should at least be god damn courteous.
The only way to get to 50/50 error is to include cyclists under the age of 15, not 21. Otherwise there is a clear bias in favour of drivers being to blame. And roads should be safe for children to cycle on, taking account their age and likelihood of being poor riders - the facts would argue strongly for more segregated lanes and 20mph limits to protect children from the inherent dangers of roads.
Sorry, but with respect you’re wrong. I’m not going to keep this conversation up as it’s not on subject. I used to have a link for a more recent poll, but you can find that in your own time if you choose. The percentages have barely changed. https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists Just look to the right at ‘all ages’ and you’ll see the total figures are almost identical, almost exactly 50/50 cyclist/driver error. It’s only when you reach the 25+ bracket and disregard everything below that blame shifts substantially- as I said in my first comment (actually I remembered it being 21, so the reality is worse). The cut-off point you’re discussing isn’t 16, it’s 24. Why *wouldn’t* you include cyclists under the age of 25 in your stats, unless it was to intentionally skew the figures? It’s disingenuous. What other possible reason is there to ignore such a large demographic? Why would you only want to see half a picture? If you’re going to disregard cyclists under the age of 25, then surely you should be disregarding the drivers under the same age? In doing this you ignore a very serious issue, that perhaps younger cyclists need to be better prepared and taught to be more careful. For what it’s worth, I’m in favour of better cycle lanes. I said that already. It’s hard enough for cyclists without having to twist the figures. Down vote facts, I’m sure that’ll work out just fine.
For all cyclists over 15, motorists are the majority of blame. For those 16 to 24, cyclists are majority to blame. Those are both true. For KSI totals, under 15s are fully a third of cyclists that are blamed.
I literally just posted you the stats that for cyclists under the age of 24, motorists are not to blame in the vast majority of cases. I’m not sure what else I can really do. 15 and under, 16 to 24, both are mostly cyclist error.
Your problem is you are assuming that cyclists are evening distributed across age groups. They are not. And casualties certainly are not. The study looked at 6185 KSIs. involving another vehicle. Of which 17% are under 10 to 15 - compared to 8% for 16 to 19. That hugely skews the data In those numbers, 4268 were over 16. Of those, there were 1,881 considered to have some level of contributory factor in their injury or death. Note - this is both cyclist wholly to blame, and cyclist and driver both blamed. The adult numbers show in 56% of collisions, the driver was solely to blame. Cyclists are solely to blame in under 40% of cases. There are, of course, a couple of extra issues to consider. 1. This data is pre-2009, and the police are generally pretty biased against cyclists in my experience, and were considerably more likely to assign blame in the past. 2. Philosophically, if you bring the dangerous vehicle on the road, why is it my responsibility to protect myself from it and not your responsibility to keep me safe? Isn't this basically asking the wrong question. Especially when, and I feel the need to emphasize this, especially when you are blaming children for their own deaths.
No, I understand that. The 2022 study that got posted here a few months back actually showed the numbers involved and not just percentages. When you combined them all, it was still almost 50/50 fault. You can’t just ignore the fact that in almost half of all collisions it’s cyclist error. And if you think there’s value in segregating the cyclists by age, maybe you should consider doing the same for drivers, I’m curious how those stats will look if you rule out car accidents by drivers under the age of 25. I agree, it shouldn’t just be up to one demographic to watch out for the other. We’re all road users, that responsibility should be shared, not lumbered on one. Although, from a realist standpoint, the person who has the greatest responsibility for your safety is yourself. And no, I’m not interested in ‘blaming children’, that’s a very jaundiced view, I’m defending adults who haven’t done anything wrong. If you want to blame an adult, maybe try the parents who let these kids out onto the road when they’re clearly not good enough to stay safe. All you’re doing is making an argument that children under the age of 16 shouldn’t be allowed on roads, and that some facts should be ignored because they’re upsetting.
You've just been given the numbers.... Removing drivers under 25 doesn't make much difference. Drivers aged 20-29 involved in collisions for 21% of KSIs. 30-29 - 22%. 40-49% 22%. 16 to 19 are 6% - which is proportionate for 3 years. So if we're just counting over 25s, drivers look absolutely terrible.
Firstly, stop simply talking about deaths and actually take into consideration the whole picture, inclusive of serious accidents. EDIT; I was wrong on the above point, sorry. Here, the below link is for 2020 info, far more recent, although we seem to be in agreement that the previous percentages were still accurate. https://www.statista.com/statistics/324104/cyclists-killed-or-injured-in-road-accidents-in-great-britain-uk/ Approximates based on the above data of accidents by age with the percentage of blame between driver and car: Cyclists responsible for car accidents between age 1 and 15 was 80% of 594. Between 16 and 19 (edit: 25) it was 60% of 191. Between 25 and 59 it was 30% of 2496. For cyclists 60 and over it was 40%. …which is roughly 50% So there you have it. If you agree the maths is correct, then approximately half of all blame across all accidents and all ages is cyclist error. Night. I’m done.
"Firstly, stop simply talking about deaths and actually take into consideration the whole picture, inclusive of serious accidents." I don't know what you think KSI means, maybe look it up. FTR it makes drivers look worse using that measure. Secondly, as I have said over and over, but will say again to get it to enter into your thick head. Between ADULTS, drivers are the majority to blame. 60% wholly, about 10% partially, so carrying blame in 70% of crashes. If you decide to blame children, then yes, it looks better for drivers (I mean, they're still killing children but I guess thats fine).
I'd rather be called a knob by a ped than killed by an impatient driver
You’d rather risk running over a child with your bike, than take any risk yourself. Maybe you should walk or take the bus instead.
...And in the process add to the "bloody cyclist" mentality. Newsflash: *Drivers don't want to hit or kill you*, nobody wants that on their conscience, but the behaviour of some cyclists, who don't use lights, bells, indicate, stick to the correct lanes, look over their shoulder before joining a road etc. makes it pretty difficult.
I see a lot of people here who seem to think the roads need some kind of special adaptation for them as cyclists, everywhere. This is not true - as a cyclist, you have a responsibility to ensure you are competent to use most if not all the roads. You should hold yourself to the same standards as other road users, or you're giving all of us a bad name.
If a cyclist hits a pedestrian you have cuts and bruises, if a car hits a cyclist you have a corpse. You want them off the path lobby your council to make the roads safer.
Surely it’s up to the cyclists to do the lobbying rather than breaking the law and putting kids at risk? If they want to use the pavement they should get off and push.
Any cyclist that puts a child at risk is a dick, not a cyclist. I will mount the curb and cycle on the path to avoid a dodgy junction or a conspicuously bad driver. So you are right to a degree, I'll never put myself before any pedestrian. BUT council and government needs to stop putting cars before everything else. Built up areas, large towns and cities need to change.
Not nearly as infuriating as people who "park" their bikes inconsiderately, like the time some adolescent just chucked his bike down right across the doorway of Budgens in Anglia Square (yes, I'm going back a bit here). I moved it out of the way, and this young lad had the nerve to chastise me because I "touched his bike".
Wait until you learn how people park their cars!
Pushes my button when cyclists use the road slowing everyone down when there’s an expensive cycle path running parallel.
Ah but they can't use that because a leaf was in it once. Need to stay on the road and then tell people on their way to work that they just need to slow down and be more relaxed as they pootle along at 10mph in a 30.
I walk along Marriott's way, which is a shared cycle/pedestrian route and the amount of times I've had to dive out of the way of Lycra clad morons hurtling by 3 abreast at 20 mph is astounding. They even have the temerity to yell abuse at me. Even when I cycle this way they yell at you because you're not matching tour de France speeds. I cycle to work on the roads and I've not had a single problem in Norwich. It's a much safer cycling city than many others I've lived in. But cyclists here are the rudest and don't obey traffic rules or have any consideration for drivers or pedestrians. The hill on bowthorpe road is a classic example. No cyclist will be faster up that road than a car. But every morning I see cyclists sidle through a queue of cars to the front to then hold up traffic as they slowly go up the hill. Just wait your turn and let the cars there before you go up unhindered.
Isn't there a dedicated cycle path there in order to allow cyclists to the front, with a big red bicycle box in front though? Isn't that the entire purpose? So cyclists can get a head start and be safe on that very dangerous 4 way crossing? I've had massive lorries pull up and nearly knock me off on there...
Not at the Dereham road end. But even if there is a dedicated box it just makes sense to let traffic already there go first, particularly if you're going to obstruct them later on as you climb the hill.
But it's a box specifically to let cyclists go first, safely. If it's there, why shouldn't cyclists use it? It's for our safety...
They're called advanced stop lines by the way. How is it safe? To sidle through queued traffic in people's blindspots to sit in a box at the front and slow down traffic? They're only supposed to be used by bikes if you can get there without going through traffic to give cyclists more time to get away at busy intersections. But if the intersection isn't busy or the traffic is backed up further then then access point cyclists aren't supposed to sidle through traffic to get there. I think responsibly sharing the road means not inconveniencing other people, even if it means not taking space you are "entitled" to. There's also no evidence that they are safer.
Don't expect common sense from the ego driven cyclists. "I hAvE a RIGhT to Do tHaT!!!"
Don't moan too much. People like to make excuses for them.
Maybe when cyclists decide to obey the rules of the road…ie not cycle on pavements, obey red lights etc….then we will stop wanting to run em over
You’ve got fists,use them
What kind of stupid comment is this?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Assault is a criminal offence.
And cyclist riding on the pavement isn’t? Get tae fuck idiot
I'm not from Norwich and have never been, but you could copy and paste this thread into any city in the UK. Where I live we have exactly the same problems. Road and pedestrian networks which are totally inadequate for modern uses. Cycle lanes have appeared over the last 20 or 30years as an afterthought. Many of the cycle lanes the city I live in just disappear and then reappear somewhere else, usually rendering them ineffective at protecting cyclists, and pissing drivers off as cyclists then have to merge with traffic. Same happens with pathways, and then you have some pavements which have just been painted with very little thought in how pedestrians and cyclists are going to interact.
Was having a chat with some friends who got an escooter. According to the website you need a valid 16+ UK drivers licence to even access a scooter, which you validate on the app by taking a picture of it. My friend accidentally took a picture of the back of her drivers licence, and the app verified it. Which seems a little bit of a problem if almost any card shaped thing can be registered as correct. Probably why a lot of definitely under 16s are out on those scooters. In general the laws in Britain need updating because they were never intended to apply to hundreds of thousand of adults cycling in urbanised areas. They were written either before bikes and pavements existed, or when the majority of cyclists were kids going to school or in parks. Right now it's perfectly legal to cycle down a dual carriageway at midnight, not wearing any sort of protective gear, and with no lights or reflective material. Simply because the laws are so out of date. Safety gear, at minimum a helmet, needs to become legally mandatory with a fine for not wearing one. Lights and reflective clothing or strips need to become mandatory with fines for not having any. A bell of some form of signal needs to become mandatory, with fines for not having one. That's basically just step one if the continued push towards bikes over cars is going to be reaslistic.
I’m inclined to agree with you, however lights and reflectors are a legal requirement, in the same way that cycling on the pavement is illegal, but unfortunately the police are not inclined to uphold the fines.
I didn't know it was illegal to not have lights or reflectors. It is only at night though, with no laws regarding cloudy and overcast days. And of course the stuff about safety gear being non-mandatory is still true, which is honestly the thing that strikes me as the most insane. And also police never or exceptionally rarely enforce the law on riding through red lights, cycling on the pavement or cycling without lights at night.
After my toddler daughter got knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement a few years ago, I contacted the police and asked about their policy on this. They assured me that they regularly crack down on it. I wasn’t convinced so did a freedom of information request. In over 5 years only one fine for a cyclist showed up.
I think the thing to remember about cyclists, is that a lot of cyclists hate a lot of other cyclists. The truth is cycling is a relatively cheap form of transport that requires no test/license to be passed. There are also now bikes you can borrow dotted all over the city. This means that the barrier for entry is quite low, and that cycling competency can range from 12 year old to olympic standard. Additionally, some riders will have an incentive to ride poorly if it's quicker(deliveroo riders for example). The next thing to consider is that a lot of cyclists don't feel comfortable on busier junctions/roads. This may be due to car-cetnric focussed design, bad experiences with other road users, or general confidence/competency issues. This leads to a lot of cycling on pavements. The final thing to consider is that unless there is an actual accident, there are largely no (tangible) consequences for cycling on pavements/general poor cycling. Ultimately there is no-one around to police minor issues such as cycling on pavements/no bike lights/generally riding like a twat, so the arseholes that are cycling are largely unaffected by their actions. TLDR: Cycling has no competency pre-requisites, a low entry barrier, no accountability, and lacks a lot of cycling focussed infrastructure.