UKH

Thank you very much indeed to the kind and thoughtful mountain biker who not only stopped some way behind us three horse riders on the narrow and winding Sebergham to Caldbeck bridleway this morning but waited and then got off and pushed his bike past us when invited to do so - what a gentleman!

An unfortunate contrast were the two road cyclists careering through Caldbeck far too fast and almost colliding with a couple pushing their baby across the road in a push chair. When the father quite politely suggested that they should slow down going through the village one of them responded "F... Off". You horrible little arrogant worm - if cyclists wonder why they have a bad name it's entirely because of total plonkers like you.

Totally agree the roadies were out of order here. However, those of us that ride in a responsible, considerate manner, and still get abuse, close passes, people trying to scare us with cars etc, don't wonder why- we know exactly why. And I can tell you that being on the receiving end of all that, means that I am, if anything, probably more frustrated than most non-cyclists by the minority of cyclists that ARE spoiling it for the rest of us. That said, I think a large portion of the abuse we get is totally unjustified, and is just drivers who are angry at being inconvenienced for 5 seconds by having to sit back until they can safely overtake.

A nice, story though: I was stopped (with several hundred others) in a small village, at a checkpoint of a large-participation audax in the Bristol area recently. A woman in horse-riding clothes marched up to the officials running the checkpoint (who braced for what seemed an inevitable complaint), and announced that she was very grateful, because every single participant who had passed her, had slowed right down, given a wide berth and announced their presence. And every group I've been with past horses, has done exactly the same. Not least because the idea of being kicked off the bike doesnt hugely appeal. So perhaps it's a minority causing the problems, and the rest of us don't really deserve the flak we get.

It’s funny how motorists never seem to get a bad name despite causing death, destruction and carnage on a daily basis. Amazing psychology. 

"Far too fast", but presumably slower than any cars on the road, and under the speed limit? Not excusing their response of course, but generally when I cross a road I look for things on said road, on two or four wheels, and give way to them as is the custom.

If you know Caldbeck at all (anyone who's done Lakes in a Day does), it's a small village with narrow roads and poor sightlines, so "well below the speed limit, looking out for pedestrians who haven't been able to see you" is the only sensible way to drive or ride through it.

I'd started to write a response before I saw your post - fair enough then.

I suppose that's one benefit of having a pram; you can push it out into traffic, kind of like dipping your toe.

Must admit I'm not familiar with the place, and they may well have been going too fast. Regardless, if you are the one crossing the road, you are responsible to look out for things on it!

Everyone needs to take care - those moving and those crossing. The heavier and faster the thing moving, the more important for the mover to take care. 

Indeed if you are going to fast to stop in the distance you can see, on whatever form of transport, then you are going too fast.

I rode through there today and would have been doing around 20MPH which is a reasonable pace for a bike but no faster than cars would be going through at 

People, particularly people transporting babies really need to look before stepping out into the road. Bikes have a much smaller frontal area and make much less noise than a car. So people need to actually look before crossing a road, this is just basic school road safety stuff here. 

If it had been a car that had to take action to avoid hitting them then they would have rightfully given them a beep of the horn. However a cyclist, who would have been seriously injured if they had hit the pram or swerved to avoid it should rightfully be angry that a pedestrians lack of care, nearly resulted in them getting hospitalised, not to mention the endangerment of thier child. Coupled with the response from the pedestrian then telling them to slow down (presumably so they can just blindly wonder out into roads and expect everyone else to slam on for them) adding insult to injury.  I'm not surprised by the cyclist response, I'd have probably shouted something too.

I don't know what it is with people in the lakes, admittedly mainly tourists but they seem to think that if  it's rural road safety goes out the window and you can just walk down the middle of roads without a care in the world.

As a local in the area, I see many psychopathic road bikers as silent merchants of death.

Their stopping distance is impossibly long for the speeds they do through villages, especially round blind corners. No one can hear them. Horses, kids on bikes, anyone doing a three point turn. People reversing out of their lonnings or driveways.

At least cars have brakes that work. And of course if you happen to be in the way of a rampant lycra-freak- the V sign and abuse comes thick and fast.

Yours, climber, driver and cyclist,

DC

Well it's a good job we have eyes isn't it. Remember, stop, look, listen? And if it truly is a blind bend then it's not really a place to be crossing the road or doing a 3 point turn at. You're just as likely to get mowed down by a car as you can't hear them if you're in a car yourself either. The incoming wave of electric cars will make looking a lot more important in the future as well 

The difference between a stepping out in front of a bike to a car is with a car oncoming you're only putting yourself at-risk so the driver is only angry at the shock you've given them, forcing them to take action. With a cyclist you're putting them directly at risk of serious harm so it's no surprise they get angry.

It's not to say cyclists are all perfect road users though, they make mistakes too. I've had a couple of near misses with cars which have been my fault in the past I'll admit. But with people, if a person steps out into the road, they are the ones who need to judge when it's safe to do so and shouldn't expect everyone to break and swerve around them as they wonder into traffic.

Edit,* 

Also a driver, climber and cyclist (road and MTB)

You need to be able to stop when a hazard appears in front of you.

Given that people will obstruct your path without warning you need to be going slow enough that when you hit them you don’t hurt yourself too much.

This might mean going very slowly at times.

You can, as an adult, adopt the ‘I’m in the right, they shouldn’t do that’ attitude but that’s likely to end in tears.

In the UK. At the moment anyway. 

It is illegal to drive on the pavement but not illegal to walk in the road. It is the responsibility of the vehicle rider/driver to avoid hitting pedestrians and other objects that are in the road. 

The only thing is, no matter what speed you are going, someone can always walk out late enough for you to hit them. Even travelling at 10mph doesn't eliminate thinking and braking distances.

Blind bends are not good places to cross, someone consistently doing this will eventually get hit by something. Road users should generally slow down for bends and even more so for blind bends, however, if a corner is safe at 15 mph and a bike is already travelling at 15mph, they might not have to.

If someone shoves a pram into the road 10 feet infront of a cyclist that person deserves every bit of abuse going, regardless of speed of the cyclist. The same is probably true at 20 or 30 feet too if I'm honest. 

I wonder why as a cyclist I should respect pedestrians who doff their cap and tug their forelock at the sight of any approaching car, but are happy to step into the road in front of a cyclist and then have the temerity to act as if they were in the right.

Completely sick of these idiots. The speed limit for bikes and cars is exactly the same, and in tight situations a cyclist takes up less space and can stop more quickly, meaning that they can go faster for longer.

Get the f*ck out of my way.

CB

I'd agree if everyone thought and acted logically and reasonably all the time. Unfortunately we don't. Right/wrong doesn't really matter, I'd rather not splatter someone at 25+mph on my road bike, so I think I'll slow down a bit if there's pedestrians around, especially kids.

I agree that some people deserve all the abuse that they get but hitting some one or something on your bike will hurt you hence my point about going slow - even though this won’t prevent all accidents and is frustrating when you’re trying to make progress.

I will certainly slow down if they are children around, but do you read a thread on here even tie a car goes too fast? Also, how many lethal pedestrian/cyclist accidents are there, compared to car/lorry cyclist/pedestrian?

We simply take a technology for granted that wipes out a small town each year (pollution deaths not even included).

CB

You missed out dogs on extendable leaders or lose; which is often deemed acceptable by the owner because fido is very friendly etc.. 

Unless people hear a car noise many just don't look. Natural selection and electric cars will solve this problem pretty quickly. 

they shouldn't be reversing out. You reverse from the big to the small. Not the other way around. 

But the cyclist will be paying attention, they won't be messing with their phone, radio, kids, drive through meal, smoking etc.. they'll be watching the road the whole time. 

Yes, ten years ago or so I hit an extendable dog lead at about 30km/h, in the dark, extended chest high across the cycle path (which is legally not even a cycle path, but a road blocked for motor traffic).

The arsehole owner even complained when his ratty little dog was whipped around and smashed into the embankment, and yes, I did have really bright front lights on that bike (Supernova E3 with a SON hub dynamo).

CB

Edit: And, as you say, I was almost killed by one of the first electric cars in Paris, 1995ish, when I stepped into the road trusting my ears only.

My point was (in reply to another post) that whoever is technically in the right or in the wrong doesn't really matter. If someone steps out in front of me on a bike and I'm going fast it's not going to end well for either of us.

I think the phrase is, 'two wrongs don't make a right'

 in tight situations a cyclist takes up less space and can stop more quickly, meaning that they can go faster for longer.

A car going at 20 can surely stop more quickly than a cyclist at the same speed? Or can it? Has this been researched?

Specific example - Greystoke has a sort of triangular village green with a pub and busy frontage. There are numerous kids, dogs, scooters, horses and all sorts of pedestrians milling around often. Five roads meet here, including the entrance to the castle.

The cars that pass by or turn up any of these five roads go very very slowly, and they can all stop almost immediately.

Meanwhile, the lunatic cyclists who blast downhill from the Berrier road directly towards same village green (that they can't see until they come round the bend at high speed) have no chance of stopping.

Anyone in the way gets the v sign and usual abuse, especially car drivers, despite the fact they may be turning, parking, or going exceedingly slowly.

Many of the cyclists are selfish, arrogant, stupid and unpleasant, devoid of any common sense, way too fast and wholly irresponsible.

DC

So all the cars drive slowly and ALL of them can stop immediately and many of the lunatic cyclists are selfish, arrogant, stupid and unpleasant.

Do you have any actual statistics to back this up or any factual reports on accidents for this specific area or is it just your own biased viewpoint ?

Saying it's what you've seen doesn't count as I'm sure you've only actually got your viewpoint over a relatively small period of time, maybe I'm wrong and you've spent 12 hours a day there for a week.

I've yet to read any actual statistics for any area whatsoever that prove cyclists are more dangerous or are responsible for more crashes or injuries that motorists on any road anywhere. maybe this will be a first.

The space issue is obvious, but at least as long as we are talking about a proper race bike, regardless of rim or disc brakes, the bike will slow down more quickly due to its lower mass.

A quick google yielded no proper, scientific results, but anecdotally, when I was young and indestructible I would race cars down passes in the Alps on my race bike. You can beat them on the brakes every turn, even if they catch up on the straights.

CB

This has the distinct whiff of confirmation bias exaggeration about it. If not, what about being a cyclist do you think makes people such awful human beings? Are the bikes themselves evil and gradually turn the riders to their will, or do evil people seek bikes out, attracted for some reason to aluminium, carbon fibre and lubricants?

Interesting how cyclists insist to the nth degree on their right to dominate the road regardless of inconvenience to motorists but then expect pedestrians to get of their way and won't countenance slowing down "for just a few seconds" to accommodate them.

Pedestrians are just as entitled to use the road as cyclists. 

Perhaps the UK  should adopt something similar to 'Zones de Rencontre' as used in France, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland.

Roads / areas where there is a 20 kmh speed limit and pedestrians are not obliged  to use pavements and have priority over vehicles / cyclists when crossing. The center of my local village, which is one, long, narrow street with parking on both sides works this way.  

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_de_rencontre

I've often noticed when talking of hundreds of thousands of people as if they were a homogeneous mass that that's when I'm normally talking out of my arse.

Roads are not for pedestrians, they are for vehicles. Yes you can walk along them legally but even then you need to be responsible, walking head into traffic so you can see it coming and ideally keeping tight in to the verge or stepping up onto it when cars pass. Even then though you need to exercise common sense, walking down the side of a main A road with a pram for example would be reckless in the extreme.

I agree cyclists should slow down if they are in traffic or a pedestrianised area and they do but for quiet villages I see no need unless it's freakishly busy for some reason. What you need to remember is that what might seem like a narrow road for a car is a huge open area for a bike, they don't need to slow down because it isn't narrow or restrictive for them. Pedestrians wanting to cross the road need to look for anything incoming before stepping out. Speed is irrelevant really, as it's no faster than cars, people simply need to look before crossing as all children are told at school, the fact it's a bike rather than a car makes no odds in that respect.

Another point, which hasn't really been raised yet is why they are going 'fast' in the first place? They aren't popping to the shops they are out on a ride and average speed, power output etc matter. No one wants to spend half thier ride at a crawl because some lunatic might want to blindly run into the road as they please. Imagine running a marathon, and you're on target for a personal best time but then you're expecting to stop for a few mins to let someone cross, you're not going to do it are you? You'd push on. Or a climb where you're about to nail your project but some punter pulls on a warm up Infront of you.

No, none of it matters. I cycle, I always assume that some idiot will pull out of almost any driveway or entrance and ride defensively. If you're interested in stats and speed then choose somewhere straight and with good sightlines. 

Fundamentally in this kind of small village (with a lack of pavements etc) it needs to be a Dutch-style residential area "wheeled traffic, whether motorised or not, at walking pace, pedestrians have priority".  It's tiny, having that approach to pass through it is going to add all of about 2 minutes.  It's not on a main road or anything that could be construed as one.

By the way, I'm a driver, cyclist and pedestrian (be that walking or running).  I'm going to quote that Honda ad again as it's excellent - aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?  There is no need for any adversity between modes, just recognition about how they should all behave for the common good in a given setting.

Agreed.  And if there are any Strava segments going through villages like that, Strava needs to remove them.  It is not the place for that kind of thing; that's for the open road.

Pedestrians are a 'Road User' under the Highway Code: that why Rules 1 to 39 cover Pedestrians.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/introduction

'The Highway Code is essential reading for everyone. The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians'

I think degree of vulnerability dictates who should give way to whom. When I’m cycling I give way to pedestrians (and am considerate to horse riders)

Falsch!   There are lots of people under the age of responsibility out there.  Cyclists are JUST as obliged as any other road user to be aware of the possibility of toddlers, children, distracted, elderly, drunken, or unwell people stepping out suddenly.  Not to mention phonoaddicts glued to their screens.

But what if you're going for a KOM or a PR on Strava? If this is the case, f**k everyone else.

;p

There's an excellent publication called The Highway Code. It explains the rules of using the road. The great thing about it is that if everyone knows the rules and uses the same rules then everyone knows what everyone else is going to do so you have fewer accidents.

You should check it out, there are bits about giving way. Just yesterday you complaining about all the trouble you were having with cars. Your post explains a lot.

I don’t have trouble with cars, I have trouble with a small minority of drivers. 

In all seriousness though as I said there's a place for Strava segments and small villages with significant numbers of tourists walking around with no pavements on some of the roads are not that place.

Oh absolutely, mowing down other road users is clearly irrelevant in comparison to a cyclists PB.

You OK with motorists taking the same approach to cyclists?

If a car is driving on a public road under the speed limit and someone without looking ,steps out in front of it closer than its possible for the car stop and gets hit as a result it is completely the fault of the person stepping into the road. The same would apply to bikes. 

And btw,. Not talking about KOM's and PB's on Strava segments. I'm talking about people just keeping a decent pace on thier ride. Unlike driving it's a sport, you can't just slow to a crawl every time there is the possibility of another human getting near you or it would make going out on the bike pointless. 

Highway code Rule 5:  Organised walks. Large groups of people walking together should use a pavement if available; if one is not, they should keep to the left. Look-outs should be positioned at the front and back of the group, and they should wear fluorescent clothes in daylight and reflective clothes in the dark. At night, the look-out in front should show a white light and the one at the back a red light. People on the outside of large groups should also carry lights and wear reflective clothing.

I can’t recall a single time in my life when I’ve seen a group of people obeying rule 5 mind you.

Why whats's stopping us? Surely we need to be able to anticipate danger and adjust to it, ride to the conditions etc, as you would in a car. And the OP wasn't about every time, it was talking about a Lakes village on a bank holiday weekend with pedestrians and kids all over the place.

Why do they? I record all of these (except power, far too tight to buy a meter ;p) but it's for nothing more than my own amusement and training. I think I'd rather mess up my figures than mess up someone else.

Throughout this thread you consistently say that as long as you are going within the speed limit then all is fine.  This is ridiculous.  Whether in a car, lorry or bike you need to go at a speed that is safe for the conditions and environment you are in.  Speed limits are a pretty blunt instrument for safety and will not always be suitable for the specific conditions and environment you are in (otherwise we would need constantly changing speed limits).  I suspect you can get prosecuted for dangerous driving or driving without undue care and attention within the speed limit.

I suggest you think strongly about how you approach using the road in a safe manner for all concerned.  More importantly take some time to think about the implications of you killing a small child whilst you are out enjoying yourself and trying to beat you PB.  I would hope your first reaction to the parents would not be "well I was going within the speed limit so all is fine" - which is the attitude you are demonstrating in this thread.

If ever there was an argument for psychological profiling to prevent people from using the road you are a great example.

Interesting indeed. If remotely true.

You need to ride to conditions. No one is suggesting you need to ride at a crawl because people are around but a small village on a busy day? Makes sense to slow down. 

Guess what, there are absolute gems and absolute twunts in almost every walk of life.  There’s even climbers who are less than civil.  I dare say there are a few horse riders and people pushing prams who qualify too.

The trick is to not label everyone and feed your prejudices.  Unless of course it’s politicians, they are all evil scum

I always ride at what I judge to be a safe speed for conditions and anticipate danger the best I can, whether I'm driving or riding my bike, and as such I have never crashed in either. The Village the OP was talking about was the exact same village I rode through that same day so I know exactly what it was like, there was hardly anyone about and no one in the road when I passed (about 3pm if it helps). 

The only difference is there might be a difference between what I judge to be safe for the conditions and what someone else does. That comes down to competence on the bike and ones personal attitude to risk.

I don't want to crash any more than anyone wants to be crashed into, so where there are people about I'll give them a wide berth where I can. But there are certain factors outside of my control, people on the pavement randomly stepping out in front of me is one of them.

As to why speed etc matters, is it not obvious? I'm not a great cyclist, maybe I'm just more competitive than most people but when I go out on my bike I push myself hard and try to do my loop as fast as possible, you could have the same argument about climbing and grades. 

Basically, there are rules to using a road, you have to assume people are going to follow them otherwise you'd never be able to drive/ride anywhere. It's why you can happily pull onto a roundabout even well you can see other cars approaching, because you know there are rules and they'll look and give way to you. Or why you don't slow to a crawl every time you pass an adjoining road on the off chance a car might randomly pull out on you. Yes occasionally people don't look and that's why crashes happen but it is just a risk we take when we use the roads.   

Not necessarily.  The speed limit is a limit, not a target.  It is not always sensible to drive/ride at the speed limit; often the safe speed is much, much lower.  Small single track country lanes are a classic example - the limit is typically NSL i.e. 60mph for cars, but in almost no case is it actually safe or sensible to reach that speed.

Fundamentally if you think there is a reasonable chance someone might step out, as a driver/cyclist you need to reduce your speed.  If you've ever been to Caldbeck (have you?) you will probably appreciate that it is the kind of village where the limit (30mph) is similar - you really want to be doing 20mph or lower in places.  If you haven't been there, maybe you should, or at least take a quick Google Maps tour?  (If you also run ultras I do recommend Lakes in a Day!)

You really should not be using the road in that way.  If you want to do that, book a day at a track or on an airfield or something.  There is no issue with you pushing your speed on the open road if you want to, as after all you'll be slower than most of the cars.  But that attitude is not appropriate in a small village; safety has to come first.  If it isn't, please choose where you cycle accordingly.

A "crawl" may not always be appropriate - it depends.  But you have to anticipate hazards and react appropriately including reducing speed.  Remember that the "insurance blame" is not the only thing to think of.  In the end, if you ride into someone you have both been injured and both have had your day ruined, regardless of whose fault it technically was.  Do you really want that?  Really?

FWIW, I hear this from car drivers too - "it doesn't matter, their insurance will pay".  It DOES matter.  Two people have been hurt and had their property damaged because of the stubbornness of one of them in not driving or riding defensively because they preferred to assert their legal rights than to accommodate a human error (we all make them occasionally) and avoid injury.  That is not OK.

Ever considered a defensive driving course?

Living in MK I am very familiar with roundabouts and the fact that people don't indicate properly on them.  So no, I don't just pull out, I look for additional evidence that they are in fact turning off.  You can deduce this from road position, from looking for their wheels turning etc.

Same with side-roads - a car there is a hazard, a quick glance to see if their wheels start moving and to plan what you are going to do if they do (is there space to swerve into the right hand lane?  Could you turn left instead?  Is there room to brake?) could save your and their life, as could simply lifting off the throttle a little.

There is a saying - don't drive as if everyone else is incompetent.  Drive as if they are actively out to kill you.  Humour them, calm down, relax, and arrive maybe 2 minutes later but in a far better frame of mind and not dead.

This kind of approach might take you half a second longer at the roundabout but reduces the chance of you dying or hurting someone else.

(By the way I don't quite understand the wording of your roundabout point - in the UK it is "priority to the right" on joining non-signalised roundabouts, so you *don't* pull onto one unless by doing so you will not require someone to change speed or direction)

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

'Speed limits: You must not drive faster than the speed limit for the type of road and your type of vehicle. The speed limit is the absolute maximum - it doesn’t mean it’s safe to drive at this speed in all conditions.'

Just to add.

But ... speed limits do not apply to cycles (unless local bye-law in place).

Although the Police have used an old law of 'cycling furiously' to prosecute a cyclist for excessive speed:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/14/article14.html

Why "presumably"? The vehicles moving fastest past my house are cyclists who have built up speed in the long hill leading down to the village. I am a cyclist and yes it is fun but they ride too fast through a village with tight bends and random pedestrians on a road that does not have pavements. 

That's interesting, despite being 20+ years old. Especially the time of day, you'd think it was pretty quiet in the middle of the night. 

This can, notably, occur well below the limit as well.

Slow down in the villages, give it welly on the open road. Is that really such a sacrifice?

Yes, I have ridden through Caldbeck, many times in fact as it's on one of the routes I often ride around Skiddaw. I rode through on the day of the OP story. 

If any of you had read any of my last few posts, I do ride (and drive) to conditions, if it was wet or windy, or a rough section of tarmac or there was some sort of traffic issue going on then, of course, I'd slow down. For my own safety more than anyone else's. 

I've just looked up my Strava data for that section (which isn't a segment btw) on entering the village I was doing 48kph (as it was downhill travelling west-east). I then slowed to 28kph and down to about 26kph by the time I left the village. (mainly because it starts to climb slightly). Road conditions were dry with manageable potholes, wind was light and there wasn't any traffic posing a hazard to me and no one was in or crossing the road. therefore I judge my speed was perfectly safe. 

As for speed and stopping distances and what not. If someone steps out, in front of you or a car pulls out / turns in, within a smaller distance than you can stop in (and swerving isn't an option) then its just physics you will hit them. The only argument I can see there (providing you are within the speed limit) is that a faster speed requires a greater distance and therefore the person wanting to cross the road has to look further into the distance. But at sub 30MPH speeds here we aren't talking huge distances, even for a bike. 

If you're riding through Caldbeck it might be a good idea to carry a horn that would awaken the dead.

I think you've summed up what the rest of us were trying to say with a much shorter post.....

Unless you're riding in a properly organised and marshalled event, possibly with road closures, then it's not a sport, it's a recreation and a means of getting from A to B.  Wishing to maintain a "decent pace" because you imagine yourself to be leading the peloton doesn't excuse you from riding without consideration for other road users.  No one would for a moment consider this acceptable behaviour from a car driver, why should cyclists be exempt?

If someone steps out right in front of you, whether you're in a car or on a bike, there's probably not much you can do.  However as a driver or rider you should have anticipated the possibility that they might do so, paying attention to their body language or behaviour for clues, and prepared for the possibility of having to stop or avoid them.  We all bear a responsibility towards other people using the roads.