Errant cyclists (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Errant cyclists
11:54am Saturday 10th November 2012 in Letters By Reader's letter
YOUR correspondent of November 1 who asserts that he/she rides on the road or cycle lane as directed, is in my experience, in a minority so far as cyclists in York are concerned. But I thank them for that.
Sadly, my experience with cyclists in York is very different. Specifically the portion of the A59 Poppleton Road between Howe Hill Road and Acomb Road, where there is a very generous cycle path on the north east side. So where do the majority of cyclists ride? Anywhere but on the cycle path.
They ride in the carriageway, in both directions, they ride on the footpath on the south west side of the road, they even ride on the separate footway that runs parallel to the cycleway on the north-east side, but is nicely separated by a pleasant tree-lined strip. And then have the audacity to ring their bells at pedestrians. Even if they are on the cycleway they ignore give-way markings. I have had to jump clear of a juggernaut cyclist on more than one occasion.
Respect is mutual. As a pedestrian and bus-user I frequently see bad behaviour by motorists and cyclists alike. Let us not forget that we are all pedestrians at some time or another.
Name and address supplied.
Comments(16)
ReflectiveVest
says...
2:02pm Sat 10 Nov 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
2:30pm Sat 10 Nov 12
ReflectiveVest wrote:Not annoying for me at all.
Yes, Buzz, this letter was about errant cyclists. How annoying for you that the person wrote about the subject that concerned them, instead of whatever would suit your prejudices better. As for hyperbole, I prefer that to your dismissive remarks. This correspondent is absolutely right, cyclists who think the rules of the road don't apply to them ARE a danger. The fact that other road users can also be dangerous doesn't make their behaviour acceptable.
You misunderstand.
I'm not exercising prejudice, I'm pointing out the prejudice of the writer of this letter and its lack of balance.
This was my point:
As a pedestrian and bus-user I frequently see bad behaviour by motorists and cyclists alike
The author sees bad behaviour by cyclists *and* motorists.
The author takes the trouble to write in detailing cyclists' behaviour *not* that of motorists.
That looks like prejudice to me.
Yes, errant cyclists are an annoying nuisance but they aren't routinely killers.
No cyclist is ever a juggernaut (def: a merciless and unstoppable moving force)
Calling a cyclist a juggernaut is trying to make them seem bigger harder and faster than they can possibly be in order to paint the damage they are capable of doing as way more than it really is. In fact the opposite is true.
If a cyclist hits a pedestrian they are very likely to come off their bike. That's going to hurt. If a cyclist hits me on the footpath, I guarantee it will hurt them.
Prejudice and a false sense of injustice leads some people to lose perspective and misunderstand the basic physics of accidents and collisions.
Paul Hepworth
says...
5:29pm Sat 10 Nov 12
PinzaC55
says...
6:04pm Sat 10 Nov 12
pedalling paul
says...
9:00pm Sat 10 Nov 12
PinzaC55
says...
9:57pm Sat 10 Nov 12
pedalling paul wrote:Yes, change the subject.
Rather like the whiter than white motor vehicle drivers who also regularly submit their thoughts.........
Even AndyD
says...
10:06pm Sat 10 Nov 12
pedalling paul wrote:Ouch - prejudice showing. Cycles and cars are both driven by humans. Some are good, some less so. Lets not go down that line which defines people by abstracts such as race, gender or mode of transport. Shame on you, Paul!
Rather like the whiter than white motor vehicle drivers who also regularly submit their thoughts.........
yorkshirelad
says...
4:54pm Sun 11 Nov 12
I suspect this isn't always realised by some people and pehaps not by this letter writer judging by the tone.
By the way, the letter clearly displays prejudice. The danger to others (inclusing pedestrians) posed by cyclists is miniscule compared to that posed by vehicle drivers as casualty figures clearly demonstrate.
Writing a letter about the dangers posed to pedestrians but targetting one particular section of society who in reality pose very little danger compared to others is clear prejudice.
A balanced letter would comment on the vastly greater danger posed by vehicles.
PinzaC55
says...
11:50pm Sun 11 Nov 12
If I cross a road I expect that I may find cars, motorcycles and bicycles coming towards me. If I am walking down a footpath I don't expect to find cars coming towards me under any circumstances but unfortunately I may find a cyclist coming towards me.
Try standing in front of a cyclist then get back to us.
yorkshirelad
says...
12:49pm Mon 12 Nov 12
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
Every death is a tragedy and the above figures very clearly show where the most danger comes from.
People who don't acknowledge this when talking about pedestrian casualties are simply showing prejudice.
It looks like about 50 times as many pedestrians are killed by cars/vans than by bicycles.
Guess which group is targetted by most letters in local newspapers?
Simple prejudice.
Ichabod76
says...
1:40pm Mon 12 Nov 12
yorkshirelad wrote:your statistic means nothing
These are the UK national figures for pedestrians killed by bicycles and cars/vans.
| 2006 | 3 | 233 |
| 2007 | 6 | 267 |
| 2008 | 3 | 247 |
| 2009 | 0 | 141 |
| 2010 | 2 | 123 |
Every death is a tragedy and the above figures very clearly show where the most danger comes from.
People who don't acknowledge this when talking about pedestrian casualties are simply showing prejudice.
It looks like about 50 times as many pedestrians are killed by cars/vans than by bicycles.
Guess which group is targetted by most letters in local newspapers?
Simple prejudice.
how many pedestrians were killed per 1000 motor cars, Bicycles ?
greenmonkey
says...
2:17pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
7:44pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Ichabod76 wrote:Statistics mean nothing because they can be manipulated to mean anything.
yorkshirelad wrote: These are the UK national figures for pedestrians killed by bicycles and cars/vans. | 2006 | 3 | 233 | | 2007 | 6 | 267 | | 2008 | 3 | 247 | | 2009 | 0 | 141 | | 2010 | 2 | 123 | Every death is a tragedy and the above figures very clearly show where the most danger comes from. People who don't acknowledge this when talking about pedestrian casualties are simply showing prejudice. It looks like about 50 times as many pedestrians are killed by cars/vans than by bicycles. Guess which group is targetted by most letters in local newspapers? Simple prejudice.your statistic means nothing how many pedestrians were killed per 1000 motor cars, Bicycles ?
That per 1000 ratio is irrelevant.
It almost infers that because of the sheer weight of numbers of motor vehicles these deaths are to be expected or are justified. Collateral damage?
If anything, that ratio asks the question if such a high percentage can routinely cycle on the path with so few deaths and injuries to pedestrians, as opposed to such a low percentage of motor vehicles causing so many deaths, shouldn't cyclists avoid the road and stick to the path? Especially when weighed against the number of cyclists killed on the road by vehicles?
Maybe 2 or 3 pedestrians a year is worth it to keep cyclist deaths down?
Collateral damage again.
The single most important issue is the *actual danger presented*
Not the perceived danger. Not the danger one can invent to relieve that sense of injustice and frustration at the spiralling cost of motoring and ever increasing congestion or the annoying anti-social behaviour of a minority.
The actual danger presented. That's what counts.
Just like the whinge "Oh there aren't enough cyclists in York to justify the investment" followed by the "These menaces are everywhere terrorising law abiding folk" it's the old 'get your story straight syndrome' again. Which is it?
We constantly hear of the majority of cyclists on the footpath and how they are a menace and the unimaginable danger they present.
So... why aren't people dying or being injured in their thousands from bicycle related pavement injuries? Why aren't the hospitals stuffed to the ginnels with the victims of these errant cyclists?
PinzaC55
says...
10:21pm Mon 12 Nov 12
Because pedestrians can generally manage to dodge cyclists or vice versa. It doesn't detract from the fact that cyclists are breaking the law by riding on the pavement.
Buzz Light-year
says...
12:20am Tue 13 Nov 12
Because pedestrians can generally manage to dodge cyclists or vice versa.
We can dodge each other??
You mean nobody is a juggernaut??
What you're saying is realistically the danger is low?
Like omfg.
Is it really just a small anti-social behaviour issue like people dropping litter or groups of kids outside the shop spitting and swearing or street drinkers making the place look messy?
Not a matter of life and death?
Bing!
Buzz Light-year says...
1:28pm Sat 10 Nov 12
...but I wrote a letter describing errant cyclists not the far more dangerous errant drivers.
Hmmm.
Oh yeah and...
Juggernaut? Really?
The worst kind of hyperbole.