Jump to content

Cyclist injures pedestrian


Featured Posts

 

As a genuine question ... how do we know that a track is designated for mountain bikers?

At dedicated trail centres (in my example) you are left in no doubt at all with the excellent signage and regular stop gates. The routes are also one way - for safety - and signage makes this very clear. Once in a blue moon you get a rider going the wrong way round also. They get an appropriate response from other riders! ;-)

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At dedicated trail centres (in my example) you are left in no doubt at all with the excellent signage and regular stop gates. The routes are also one way - for safety - and signage makes this very clear. Once in a blue moon you get a rider going the wrong way round also. They get an appropriate response from other riders! ;-)

 

:) I've never seen one .. that's why I asked ... don't want to get in the way by mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Towpath in Wigan this morning I met one group of around 30 cyclists near to the DW stadium. They were riding in single file and at a slow speed.

 

A second group of around 20 cyclists were stopped at a motorcycle barrier next to Scotsmans Flash.

 

Cycling on the towpath is alive and well in Wigan.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My feelings should not come into it. Laws/regulations where possible should look at overall benefit rather than needs or wants of smaller groups or individuals in my view.

 

So for example - if there is a demonstrable overall benefit (injuries, deaths, costs to NHS etc) in encouraging cyclists from say a red painted cycle way on the road, onto a shared pavement with pedestrians (or a tow path), then yes I think that is what we should do.

 

Curious, You post a simple inclusion to this thread of only 3 sentences.

The first sentence I suggest is a distraction because you don't want to answer Jerra's excellent and relevant question - "Would you feel the same if it was you who had 12 stitches and lost 4 teeth?"

And then you contradict yourself in the next two sentences.

 

It sounds like you are an avid cyclist who pays the same scant regard for pedestrians on towpaths as you feel vehicle drivers on the road do to cyclists.

Or perhaps you're just a troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a tow path cyclist, i get really annoyed when numptys on bikes race up to a family or a bunch of walkers deliberately skid the rear break or shout make room, i prefer the ding on a bell but that narks me too.

 

Cyclists just be polite if not their more than likely a numpty.

 

Ive told a few in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My front brake squeals. This draws attention to my presence in a far less confrontational way than ringing my bell.

 

If the pedestrians look in any way nervous or worried by my presence (or if they don't hear my front brake) I get off and walk,

 

Same if they have a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Curious, You post a simple inclusion to this thread of only 3 sentences.

The first sentence I suggest is a distraction because you don't want to answer Jerra's excellent and relevant question - "Would you feel the same if it was you who had 12 stitches and lost 4 teeth?"

And then you contradict yourself in the next two sentences.

 

It sounds like you are an avid cyclist who pays the same scant regard for pedestrians on towpaths as you feel vehicle drivers on the road do to cyclists.

Or perhaps you're just a troll.

Stop with the troll allegation.

 

I was stating that my own personal feelings about an injury to me or someone else should not be that important - that invites emotional response and is often not the best way when it comes to defining policy.

 

I then went on to describe what I hoped (but perhaps failed) was an example whereby we could take the overall cost to human life in terms of overall death/injury and see if there was a better way - and evidence shows that separating cyclists from motor traffic reduces the numbers of people killed or seriously injured - overall (that they are cyclists is irrelevant - they are humans).

 

It is not my personal feeling that lives are saved if we separate cyclists from motor traffic - it is a verifiable fact. The offset will no doubt be a number of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians/runners on shared paths - this should not ignored of course. However, if the overall benefit (human cost, cost to NHS etc) is for the good then I support decisions for shared paths.

 

There is also the benefit that increased availability of off-road cycling encourages people to get out, ride and become healthier and fitter - which saves the NHS money and improves quality of life.

 

Even better of course is to separate cyclists from motorists, and separate pedestrians from motorists and cyclists. This should be encouraged wherever possible but the infrastructure to enable this is not always there or affordable.

 

I like law and policy to be governed by reason, that's all I'm saying.

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

separating cyclists from motor traffic reduces the numbers of people killed or seriously injured - overall (that they are cyclists is irrelevant - they are humans).

 

The problem is that it appears currently to increase the number of pedestrians injured in places where they weren't before and probably think they are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My front brake squeals. This draws attention to my presence in a far less confrontational way than ringing my bell.

 

If the pedestrians look in any way nervous or worried by my presence (or if they don't hear my front brake) I get off and walk,

 

Same if they have a dog.

Dogs are always something to be careful of as they are very unpredictable. Easy to injure a dog with a collision or a caught lead and also very easy to end up in trouble yourself for failing to give dogs plenty of room when passing - and passing slowly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just lycra clad cyclists you need to be aware of .....

 

Last night I was partaking in a little Morris dancing and it's normally our sticks that are likely to cause problems.. but this time:

 

The street in St Albans was cordoned off as it is every year for about 10 different dance groups to perform outside pubs for an appreciative public (and the pubs do quite well out of the added custom) ..we were at one end of the street next to the barriers when I heard a strange whooshing sound from behind .. I turned to see a bloke clad in come hurtling around the corner at what must have been approaching 30 miles an hour on inline skates .. he managed to avoid the barriers but not two of our band - he bounced off one into the other knocking her to the ground and skating over her foot in the process ... it took him a good 15/20 yards to stop afterwards.

 

Fortunately both people he hit are fairly fit and healthy - I can't imagine the damage he would have done if it had been an elderly person or a bunch of children of whom there were many enjoying the spectacular.

 

Of course he tried to blame everyone but himself - he said cars had no warning but in the 30 minutes we were there at least 6 cars managed to stop without even a screech of brakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop with the troll allegation.

 

I was stating that my own personal feelings about an injury to me or someone else should not be that important - that invites emotional response and is often not the best way when it comes to defining policy.

 

I then went on to describe what I hoped (but perhaps failed) was an example whereby we could take the overall cost to human life in terms of overall death/injury and see if there was a better way - and evidence shows that separating cyclists from motor traffic reduces the numbers of people killed or seriously injured - overall (that they are cyclists is irrelevant - they are humans).

 

It is not my personal feeling that lives are saved if we separate cyclists from motor traffic - it is a verifiable fact. The offset will no doubt be a number of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians/runners on shared paths - this should not ignored of course. However, if the overall benefit (human cost, cost to NHS etc) is for the good then I support decisions for shared paths.

 

There is also the benefit that increased availability of off-road cycling encourages people to get out, ride and become healthier and fitter - which saves the NHS money and improves quality of life.

 

Even better of course is to separate cyclists from motorists, and separate pedestrians from motorists and cyclists. This should be encouraged wherever possible but the infrastructure to enable this is not always there or affordable.

 

I like law and policy to be governed by reason, that's all I'm saying.

 

Again you ignored the question put to you.

I refer you to my previous comments where you contradicted yourself.

 

Also you now add "Even better of course is to separate cyclists from motorists, and separate pedestrians from motorists and cyclists. This should be encouraged wherever possible but the infrastructure to enable this is not always there or affordable."

...... We didn't use to have speed cyclists on the towpath being encouraged to race against time but we do now. That is creating the problem.

 

If hang-gliders are getting a raw deal trying to follow their sport near to Heathrow, then telling them to go and do their stuff in a supermarket is no answer. You wouldn't encourage Yoga Meditation students to share the same village hall at the same time as a Marching Drum Band. So why do pedestrians, anglers, boaters with children and kids have to tolerate selfish bullies competing against apps to get their name on websight or simply because "it's what they do" ?

 

You comment "I like law and policy to be governed by reason, that's all I'm saying." So how many stitches will you need and how many teeth will you need to lose by walking along a towpath on a nice sunny day to consider there is no reason in governing a law or a policy that not only doesn't discourage speed cycling on towpaths but enforces that all other towpath users come first? That's what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is likely to get worse as well. I caught the end of a piece on Breakfast TV where mountain bikers were wanting the right to use any and all countryside foot paths. The forest tracks I use aren't wide enough for two people let alone a bike with wide handle bars wanting past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is likely to get worse as well. I caught the end of a piece on Breakfast TV where mountain bikers were wanting the right to use any and all countryside foot paths. The forest tracks I use aren't wide enough for two people let alone a bike with wide handle bars wanting past.

Here is the letter from British Cycling that triggered the recent discussions in the media on access rights:

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/MTB_ACCESS_LETTER_SECRETARY_OF_STATE.pdf

 

Access to every path would be a complete nonsense and I'd hope no-one would ever expect that. However, I suspect there is scope for some increase in the total number of off-road routes available to cyclists. No idea how much though - it will no doubt need significant review and consultation to come to a full understanding of the situation.

Edited by Daz555
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do pedestrians, anglers, boaters with children and kids have to tolerate selfish bullies competing against apps to get their name on websight or simply because "it's what they do" ?

 

Perhaps because the overall actual risk is so low - especially when compared to the risk pedestrians, cyclists, children and kids are exposed to by motorists on public roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the letter from British Cycling that triggered the recent discussions in the media on access rights:

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/MTB_ACCESS_LETTER_SECRETARY_OF_STATE.pdf

 

Access to every path would be a complete nonsense and I'd hope no-one would ever expect that. However, I suspect there is scope for some increase in the total number of off-road routes available to cyclists. No idea how much though - it will no doubt need significant review and consultation to come to a full understanding of the situation.

Thanks for that. However the bit I caught clearly said all footpaths (by the gent being interviewed).

 

I am afraid speaking as an elderly person who is no longer really in a condition to cycle but can still able to amble along I dread access to any footpaths by cyclist. I was when younger a very keen cyclist but having been bumped by cycle handlebars a number of times I no longer feel mixing cyclists and pedestrians is a safe move, well not for slightly deaf elderly pedestrians like me.

 

So it looks as if I might lose my exercise opportunities so that somebody else can take theirs.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the letter from British Cycling that triggered the recent discussions in the media on access rights:

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/MTB_ACCESS_LETTER_SECRETARY_OF_STATE.pdf

 

Access to every path would be a complete nonsense and I'd hope no-one would ever expect that. However, I suspect there is scope for some increase in the total number of off-road routes available to cyclists. No idea how much though - it will no doubt need significant review and consultation to come to a full understanding of the situation.

 

 

Two thoughts on this.

 

There is a least one identifiable mistake in the letter, which is not surprising in view of the fact that it is part of sustained campaign which ignores the need to curb the activities of the wilder fringe of cyclists. If the writers of the letter think that everybody except them have unfettered access to Open Land they are obviously ignorant of the many exclusions relating to free use of Open Land.

 

The New Forest which is Crown Land as well as a National Park has designated routes for cycling. These routes take into account both environmental factors and the relevant needs of horse riders and walkers. The cycle routes are well maintained and signed. However more cyclists use the prohibited routes than use the designated routes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps because the overall actual risk is so low - especially when compared to the risk pedestrians, cyclists, children and kids are exposed to by motorists on public roads.

 

OK, now I understand.

Because cyclists are at risk on roads, they should join pedestrians, the elderly, animals etc on towpaths where they will be safer although it endangers the others.

 

Thanks for explaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all bikes should be fitted with a strip of Kelloggs cornflake packet to the front forks catching the spokes to make a motor sound, other cerial packets can be used, i have been in 2 bad situations this week with bikes - one pulled out in front of me i was able to swerve to miss them although he looked at me as if it was my fault - the other was - i was in London and made feel harrassed with about 30 bikers around me and overtaking me. i bike myself but still dislike bikers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the letter from British Cycling that triggered the recent discussions in the media on access rights:

 

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/MTB_ACCESS_LETTER_SECRETARY_OF_STATE.pdf

 

Access to every path would be a complete nonsense and I'd hope no-one would ever expect that. However, I suspect there is scope for some increase in the total number of off-road routes available to cyclists. No idea how much though - it will no doubt need significant review and consultation to come to a full understanding of the situation.

 

There are plenty of Bridleways they could use, some quite "adventurous"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

all bikes should be fitted with a strip of Kelloggs cornflake packet to the front forks catching the spokes to make a motor sound, other cerial packets can be used, i have been in 2 bad situations this week with bikes - one pulled out in front of me i was able to swerve to miss them although he looked at me as if it was my fault - the other was - i was in London and made feel harrassed with about 30 bikers around me and overtaking me. i bike myself but still dislike bikers.

The police in our area give out bells which are to be attached to women's purses.

 

This week I have attached a pair to my bike handlebars to see if it makes a difference.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some cyclists are just plane rude and ignorant to people on the towpath which is a pitty as it gives everyone a bad name.

 

I saw a group of mountain bikers hurtle towards a crowd of ramblers (a full coach load) and they scared the living day lights out of them all.

 

Death by walking sticks was needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some cyclists are just plane rude and ignorant to people on the towpath which is a pitty as it gives everyone a bad name.

 

I saw a group of mountain bikers hurtle towards a crowd of ramblers (a full coach load) and they scared the living day lights out of them all.

 

Death by walking sticks was needed.

 

I see no reason for the cyclists to club the walkers to death. A bell usually frightens the life out of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law-abiding cyclist, who adheres to the rules of which Iam one, Pefer to use the road as it is safer and quicker . I have clocked up over 200000 miles in forty years and yet to be hit by any motor vehical while on the road. As for cycle paths and shared pavements being safer that is total bull. Some years ago the Transport Research Laboratory carried out a detail study of the Milton Keynes redways which uncovered a number of cyclists deaths and many injurys which went unrecord under stats 19. Most people perceive motor traffic to be the main danger to cyclists. Cycle paths such as the Redways, which keep cyclists away from motor vehicles, are therefore thought de-facto to be the safest routes for cyclists to use. In Milton Keynes considerable evidence has accumulated to challenge this view.

 

From John Franklin’s article in Traffic Control & Research

 

The most frequently cited data on traffic accidents is that gathered by the Police, using Stats 19 forms, and collated by the Highway Authority.

 

It is known that many accidents involving cyclists are not reported to the Police, but this is especially the case for accidents that occur on cycle paths and shared pavements where fewer than 3 per cent of accidents are believed to be reported . In particular, accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle are rarely recorded even when serious.

 

In Milton Keynes this situation has been aggravated by a frequent unwillingness on the part of the Police to accept accident reports from cyclists, especially when off-road. One fatality to a cyclist was not recorded as a cycling accident.

 

Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the Stats 19 statistics have recorded a considerable number of Redway injuries over the years.

 

From 1987 to 1998 there were six fatalities to cyclists using Redways. Another cyclist was killed riding along a footway, having used this in preference to a low-trafficked road after leaving a Redway. There was also one death to a pedestrian using a Redway to cross a local road. By comparison, there was only one road cyclist fatality in the same area and period - a young girl who crossed a grid road at night out of fear of using a dark Redway.

 

Five of the cyclist fatalities was as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle. In the other two fatalities, no other vehicle was involved. In one case youths had placed a tree across a path at night, and in the other the cause is unclear, but drink was a factor.

 

Although the raw Stats 19 statistics take no account of the relative mileage cycled on the three types of highway, it is probable that this is more than outweighed by the considerable underreporting of Redway accidents.

 

Poor visibility (particularly at junctions) is the biggest single cause of accidents, but other common causes include sharp bends, steep gradients, bollards, slippery bridges, loose gravel and mud. In short, features which are not compatible with the inherent limitations of a bicycle. The paths are often not suitable for typical cycling speeds. Some very serious injuries on Redways have been as a result of head-on crashes between cyclists, collisions with dogs, and eye injuries from intruding vegetation, all of which are rarely encountered on roads.

 

Todays pavement rider and Sustrans supporter is tomorrows dangerous driver as pavement riders don't gain the roadcraft skills.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.