Is it time to start calling out bad cyclists?

Why should this happen? The bit wot we can ride on is closed. Cars have to find another way, why shouldn't riders?

The 56-year-old told the Standard: “There are clear signs telling them to dismount. It’s really very busy with human traffic. "

Cyclist as non human.

Put them on a list.

Although, riding on a busy pavement is a totally dick move.

Cyclist as non human?

I've been walking across Tower Bridge with my bike very day this week, pretty much every other cyclist i've seen has done the same i.e. get off and push. So far the only people being dicks about it have been one guy on Tuesday evening on his bike, sitting on the saddle but propelling himself with one foot on the pavement going the same speed as everyone else walking - when asked why he didn't just get off and walk like everyone else his reply was "i don't want to wear out my cleats". This morning there was another guy scooting his bike through the crowds much faster than people walking. Apart from those two twats everyone else with a bike has been behaving as normal considerate people, contrary to that ES article.

The quote from the article referred to pedestrians as "human traffic" that cyclist were riding into. This seems to imply that the cyclists were not human traffic and therefore not human.

I took that to mean that somebody used the word human when they mean pedestrian rather than suggesting cyclists aren't human.

<fryface.jpg/>

Yes. The person quoted used the word human to mean pedestrian in a conversation about pedestrians vs cyclists.

I'm sure that in response to the question "are cyclists humans" they would answer "yes". But, the figure of speech they used seemed somewhat jarring to me, even if it was a slip of the tongue.

Had similar when Putney Bridge was closed for 6 months for resurfacing. There was a 6-8ft wide area for pedestrians walking both ways to share. No chance of cycling during the busy times but that wouldn't stop some people trying.

Twats use all forms of transport.

The same when they closed Wightman Road. They decided to enforce it by sticking up loads of barriers which just made it really annoying to try and push a bike through.

I was a badun yesterday. Nothing dangerous but still, Sorry world

Clockwise in reply to @Hefty

From what I have seen any/all cycling that results in injury is wanton in a kinda "you are on a bicycle and something has happened that's wanton".

For driving being over the speed limit is "being careless and not noticing the speedo" running a red light is "being careless and not seeing the lights" and so on. At times it feels you would need to be in an OJ style televised chase before it was apparent your actions had been intentionally breaking a law.

Also if someone is wanton cycling at 15-20mph often in a 30mph zone how is a driver careless driving at 40mph+ in a 30mph zone? That might not be specific to the case mentioned but it's a recurring theme.

The harsh wording will have a huge impact, if those reading it aren't cyclists hearing that the cyclist was furious and wanton rather than just careless totally changes the emotions involved. If it was "death by clumsy cycling accident" it entirely changes it.

Can this be raised? Whom would it need to be taken to? Some kind of online vote thingy, like the ones I get where a certain number of signatures and it has to be discussed in parliament?

mashton

The 56-year-old told the Standard: “There are clear signs telling them to dismount. It’s really very busy with human traffic. "

Cyclist as non human.

Put them on a list.

Although, riding on a busy pavement is a totally dick move.

No. Riding at anything above walking speed is dickly. I've lost track of the numbers of times where I've been Slainin' on a narrowed closed off stretch where folk walking in my direction have such a hate for the bike, they body check me to prove a point. Walking with my bike makes me wider [shoulders + handle bars]. If I cycle but do not get any closer to the person in front or appear to intimidate, then I see no problem. Issue is the fucking idiots that dodge through at speed. I've had to grab some bloke that did it to me in the city. He eventually apologised but why the aggression?

Though I accept Tower Bridge will likely have the majority flowing in one direction at rush hour, thus lessening the potential for having others have to give way to the wider load.

there's a 20m stretch at the end of Wandsworth Park through a private drive with signs asking people to dismount. 95% of the time I'm the only one pushing my bike through....

Are bikes human?

Obviously not.

Are shoes?

I've always wondered what the history of that place (Blade Mews) is.

My guess is that the land was sold off for development with the requirement that access to the park is maintained (rather than blocking off that gate). But the "no cycling" signs that have been put up aren't just advisory. (Behind Blade Mews there's an odd section of path that's part of the park but gated off.)

There are even no cycling signs that look like they apply to the public road next to the private bit: https://goo.gl/maps/58wrhSjJtvR2

It's one of the few signs that I ignore most of the time. (The other one is the no cycling sign on the little bridge over the tube tracks between Keswick Rd and Clockhouse Pl.)

Are shoes?

I hope not. Otherwise I'm in reaaaal trouble.

Without commenting on the impending case in court. It's an old piece of legislation that is used to fall back on if nothing else fits any better. If the collision took place in a park or on a shared walkway then it would be used in preference to a road traffic law. It would best suit offences relating to horse drawn carriages charging through towns like in the wild west films with flocks of chickens being scattered etc.
Also in addition to where the collision occurred; if specific warnings relating to impending consideration of prosecution weren't given to the cyclist at or within a certain time then this old legislation is the fall-back position.

I think as these things go those two examples are at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of it actually being antisocial to ride through at walking pace giving a wide birth to pedestrians. There is a perception issue though. As a youngish male on a road bike wearing cycling clothing and ignoring a 'cyclists dismount' sign I feel like I'd be more a target for aggro so I either walk through or just take the main road.

Can't comment on any on going legal cases but here is one from san fransico which you can go further into.
http://sfist.com/2012/04/05/cyclist_who_struck_pedestrian_at_ca.php

IIRC the 71 yr old gentleman died quite soon afterwards but it was his family who didn't want to prosecute said cyclist. * i might be wrong.. There is more out there on this.

Shoes obviously are; they have soles.

Yep, always ignore this one too. In my head, the signs are put there on account of the entitled rich people who live in the mews. They allow themselves to drive their Range Rover in, but feel it necessary to make cyclists walk...

Now the thing that grinds my gears are the cyclists that whizz along the riverside in Wandsworth park with no thought for the people walking with children / dogs. I've gone full apoplectic at one for nearly mowing down my daughter on her balance bike. He seemed to be complaining she didn't shoulder check before changing her line...she was two years old and yet he was convinced he was not in the wrong. People baffle me.

Shoes obviously are; they have soles.

Total Rep

Stolen from Red Dwarf:

Lister: Sometimes, I think it's cruel giving machines a personality. My mate Petersen once bought a pair of shoes with Artificial Intelligence. 'Smart Shoes' they were called. It was a neat idea: no matter how blind drunk you were, they could always get you home. But he got ratted one night in Oslo and woke up the next morning in Burma. You see, the shoes got bored just going from his local to the flat. They wanted to see the world, like, you know. He had a hell of a job getting rid of them. No matter who he sold them to, they'd show up again the next day. He tried to shut them out, but they just kicked the door down, you know.
Rimmer: Is this true?
Lister: Yeah. Last thing he heard, they'd sort of, erm, robbed a car and drove it into a canal. They couldn't steer, you see.
Rimmer: Really?
Lister: Yeah. Petersen was really, really blown away about it. He went to see a priest. The priest told him... he said it was alright and all that, like, and that the shoes were happy and that they'd gone to heaven. You see, it turns out shoes have soles.
Rimmer: Ah, what a sad, sad story. Wait a minute. How did they open the car door?

I've only walked across Tower Bridge once since it closed, and there was some dickwad on a mountain bike heading Northbound as I headed South, weaving through considerable crowds. I shouted 'prat' at him but he wasn't stopping.