CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Speeding cyclists

(14 posts)

  1. Roibeard
    Member

    Prompted by citycycling's Golden Rules:

    It is also the case that on a bike to pedestrians a cyclist is 'whizzing' by or speeding; while to the car behind that very same cyclist is 'crawling'.

    Not an original thought, but when travelling at 15 mph on the road, being passed closely by a vehicle travelling at 30mph is a bit alarming.

    Passing an ambling pedestrian on a bike at 15mph involves a very similar closing speed.

    Yes, the kinetic energy in the two cases differs by a factor of at least 40 (4x for the speed doubling, and at least 10 times heavier), but still alarming for the ped...

    Bike Polite!

    In the interests of full disclosure, I am one of those cyclists who has knocked over a pedestrian...

    It was on a borrowed, ill-maintained bicycle, before I knew better about the importance of brakes...

    I failed to stop, mounted the kerb, and took out a pedestrian coming out of a shop. They got up, proceeded to help me to my feet and then asked me if I was OK.

    *blushes*

    Please learn from my shame - present even in the case of low energy, no injury impacts!

    Robert

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    This is true if the cyclist is going the same speed on road and shared path. But 20mph on the road appears to be 'crawling', whereas over 6mph on the canal towpath is 'speeding'.

    Oft-heard complaint about cyclists from those on buses is the bus having to 'crawl' at 5mph behind a cyclist. Very very infrequent that a cyclist would be going that slowly on the road! So a lot is about speed perceptions.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. Dave
    Member

    The national average speed is only a little over 10mph. So, since being passed at a speed difference of 20-30mph by a vehicle is routine, do pedestrians have any right to moan at being passed by a cyclist with a speed difference of ~7mph)?

    </devilsadvocate>

    As Anth points out, the problem is not that people object to 'whizzing' cyclists actually going at 30mph, which would be understandable, but that they won't tolerate even a careful pass by a cyclist who's slowed down quite a lot.

    It's territorial, and understandable. A week or two back I struck a pedestrian on the north Meadows path who played chicken with me as I was moving over to avoid an oncoming rider.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Erm, moving out of the pedestrians way, and if not possible stopping would have been the appropriate action, rather than hitting them because they wouldn't move. Not condoning the pedestrian, but they do have right of way!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Dave - "...I struck a pedestrian on the north Meadows path who played chicken with me as I was moving over to avoid an oncoming rider. "

    Were you not able to stop in time? The person may have been acting like an idiot, but if you could have stopped then I reckon you had a duty to do so.

    How would you characterise a driver who behaved in this way?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. Dave
    Member

    "rather than hitting them because they wouldn't move. "

    Erm, it wasn't that they wouldn't move - quite the reverse in fact!

    Life was going quite happily until this one chap walking towards me started walking crab-like to try and force me into a head-on with the oncoming rider. You can imagine the sort of thing.

    Faced with a choice of hitting the other guy or them, putting the elbow in was purely instinctive. I rather think he was hoping to knock me off, actually.

    I did wonder briefly if it was that strange psycho shouting man referenced in earlier threads, although I've got no idea how to tell it was him (I didn't stop or say anything, and nobody shouted back).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. SRD
    Moderator

    segregated path? which side were you on? similarity seems to me to be with scenario, I encounter frequently: I am going uphill on eg viewforth terrace, and car is doubleparked on other side of road. Taxi or other comes over into my side of the road to avoid double parked car (or even just normally parked cars). Am I not in the right to keep going? I think I am, but I suppose I don't want to argue with the taxi driver about it after he's hit me.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    "How would you characterise a driver who behaved in this way?"

    You're welcome to put it to the test - go to your nearest road in rush hour and step out so that the driver has a choice between oncoming traffic and you, and see what happens?

    Slightly less flippantly, I guess it's a valid question for all cyclists - any pedestrian (or driver) *might* suddenly swerve into your path. Wouldn't even need to be malice - they've just spotted their turn, their dog's chasing a herd of deer, whatever. If you hit them, you are guilty of not leaving braking space for every eventuality.

    At the same time, in the case of an oncoming *car* that turns across your path, it's widely held that the other driver would be responsible. If an oncoming cyclist or pedestrian does it, does the liability shift?

    Interesting thoughts.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. wingpig
    Member

    "...you are guilty of not leaving braking space for every eventuality."

    Not every eventuality can be expected, but some could be considered quite likely and anticipated, particularly a pedestrian and/or cyclist coming into your way on a shared/segregated path...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. crowriver
    Member

    @SRD, this happens quite a lot on my street, double parkers everywhere. The vehicle which is impeded by the obstruction is supposed to let oncoming traffic pass before pulling out to get around it. However as we all know, many drivers either ignore this rule or didn't know it in the first place!

    My behaviour depends on the speed involved. If the opposing vehicle is going slowly I will carry on, then stop, staring the driver down to stop. We'll then negotiate passage around each other. If on the other hand the level of speed looks at all threatening, I will pull over to the left as far as possible, stopping if need be to let the murderous idiot past. Better than landing in hospital or worse.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. Dave
    Member

    "segregated path? which side were you on?"

    There's no paint so I'm guessing it can't be segregated.

    It's a bit where the riders do seem to stick on the south side though (where the path has been extended) so perhaps it's simply not properly marked.

    I don't like segregated paths for the simple reason that it encourages bloody mindedness and (on the part of cyclists, higher speeds). You can see this for instance if you compare people riding on the Jawbone walk or the Bruntsfield side compared with MMW - on the former, speeds are about half as high and everyone is paying a bit more attention. On the segregated sections with a bit of gradient, people ride much much faster.

    </digression>

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. crowriver
    Member

    Well, a paint line does not really qualify as segregation, does it? People walking often do not notice the paint lines at all and blithely perambulate all over both those paths. Frustrating, but not much one can do except use the bell and brake if need be.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. Dave
    Member

    Yeah, but I think legally the paint is segregation (if I wasn't misunderstanding the question), i.e. MMW, whereas the Innocent path has no paint.

    I would always argue against segregation from a safety perspective, just because people take that bit more care when they don't have "ownership" of part of the path - in the same way that you get a lot less space from passing traffic when a tiny cycle lane is put in.

    Thinking about it, perhaps that part of the path was segregated once, but the paint's long gone, and the pedestro was trying to knock me off for being on "his" side? (I can't even really remember the markings. I'm going to need to swing that way sometime and check it again).

    Unfortunately it doesn't make very good headcam footage because the path is so dark. All you can see really is me riding towards oncoming lights, shadowman moving in from left of screen, and the camera shakes a little.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. Smudge
    Member

    @SRD and Crowriver, the oncoming driver barging into your lane scenario is what airzound is great for ;-)

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin