NZ hotel bans cyclists' Lycra-clad loins

"the pedestrians should be walking on the side facing traffic"

That theory is all well and good*, but it breaks down completely in what might be described as "urban areas" where cyclists ride on the pavement (sidewalk if you're on the other side of the pond) despite it being illegal to do so.

* Actually it isn't. On "shared space" there can be children playing as well as dogs both on and off leads so any spatial segregation is simply not going to work. What might well work is cyclists taking more care and cycling at a more genteel pace, but these are options they are either unwilling or incapable of taking.

@Dr Syntax - Many years ago I was talking to GDOT (Georgia DOT) about these types of trails. They are detested because they do not account for the very different characteristics of bikes and pedestrians. To be blunt, they are dangerous to both because a bike can easily hit speeds of 15 mph or more compared to a person walking at 2 to 3 mph. Both sides have legitimate complaints but they should be directed at the bureaucrats who moronically think these trails are a good idea.

Re: @Commswonk

You should try wearing a hi-viz tabbard saying "I'm nice to cyclists when I drive!". And clearly your dogs should wear hi-viz coats - and helmets. And, probably, some blinking lights. The more the better.

That's what cyclists get told all the time - shouldn't it apply to pedestrians and dogs, too?

All I want is for cyclists to offer the same courtesy to me when I am on foot walking the dog and conversing with other dog walkers.

I'm willing to bet a pint that if you put your confirmation bias aside, you'd find that most do. Just as most drivers drive fairly well around cyclists.

But the ones you remember are the ones that don't.

Even in largely pleasant populations you get some arseholes. Like cyclists who don't share shared paths, or dog walkers who believe in the dog poo fairy.

It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements, which is quite simply against the law in the first place....

It's against the law, but supposed to be tolerated - according to numerous relevant ministers - unless done inconsiderately. Now, I've only been in London for 25 years, but I don't recall encountering a cyclist in central London on the pavement - the pavements are usually far too crowded. Out in the sticks^H^H^H^HBarnet you do see it, but then the pavements there are usually a) wide and b) empty.

Nobody walks anywhere in the 'burbs. They have a 4x4 and they will drive it.

Oh and ignoring red lights

It's an absolute disgrace! Most drivers in London now seem to think orange means "put your foot down", and red means "I only have 5 seconds to go!". And don't get me started on the idiots blocking junctions and roundabouts and causing bloody mayhem for everyone else. They've spent all that money on cameras and it doesn't seem to have made a difference...

Oh..

You're talking about cyclists

Not drivers of cars and HGVs that regularly kill pedestrians?

Have pity. It's a sign of weakness, not a threat*. The ones that constantly RLJ are the ones that aren't fit

enough for a proper interval workout.

* on the whole. There are, rare, occasions when it makes sense to move ahead of the line to get out of the dangerous blind spot of the HGV that pulled up behind you.

Other places doubtless have comparable problems.</quote>

Lots of places have comparable problems to London with respect to air pollution and hit and run drivers; places with decent cycling infrastructure|high cyling mode share tend to have less.

But yeah. Shared use paths are stupid and counterproductive except in very low usage situations. It should be "Pedestrianised; considerate cycling allowed" [ which, e.g. Regents Canal is. But without any enforcement, these kind of regulations tend not to be worth...]

Re: @Commswonk

> It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome

> reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements,

> which is quite simply against the law in the first place. Oh and ignoring red lights...

Meh. I drive a car, ride a motorbike and ride a pushbike. Every day I see others doing one of these things who are acting like dicks, for some reason or another. But I don't wax on about "car drivers" as a group doing this or motorcyclists as a group doing that. Maybe the clue is in the numbers - 2% of journeys by cycle, it's just a small enough segment that cyclists can be classified as "them" by the rest of the population.

In 20 years of riding in London I would say I see cyclists on pavements rarely. It's rare because it's inherently slower - if you are commuting from A to B then the pavement is the slowest place to be. Sure, it happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, and as I said there are dicks on all forms of transport.

As for jumping red lights - absoutely, if the situation calls for it and it can be done without endangering anyone. My primary goal whenever I get on two wheels is to get to where I'm going alive. If that means clearing the lights before everyone starts to accelerate around me, or when they pull 5m ahead then hard turn left, then damn right I'll do it. Note this is a "look, ensure it's clear then go", not a "plow wildly through a pedestrian crossing" type of light running. Yes, again, that happens, and I refer you to my above comment about dicks.

Re: @Stu Mac

The primary cause of motorcycle accidents where it isn't the fault of the rider is being shunted from behind at stops and traffic lights. If you filter between stationary traffic then this obviously can't happen to you, hence the reason we do it.

The same can be said for cyclists. Their cross-section from behind is considerably smaller than most motorbikes so they've got no chance if someone isn't paying full attention. At least bikers have their armour.

I'd be lying if I said it's not also nice to get ahead of the traffic though.