Author Topic: More dangerous cyclists  (Read 467 times)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
More dangerous cyclists
« on: September 23, 2017, 11:02:04 PM »
I got knocked down again on the pavement by one cyclist (group of three) then narrowly missed by another (group of two).  I'm struggling to know where to shop where it's safe any more.

I can't even be sure of getting as far as the bus stop without being knocked over (that's what I was doing today).

Whinge, grumble, mutter, moan.

That feels better.  Now for some music to drown out the very annoying tinnitus I've had since the last time but two I encountered a cyclist and went splat.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 11:33:54 PM by Sunny Clouds »
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

SunshineMeadows

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7521
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2017, 09:58:49 AM »
 >bighugs< >chocolate<

It sounds like you should maybe try wearing builders clothes you know trousers with padded knees, a fluorescent yellow jacket, boots and a hard hat. If you were wearing that outfit people would probably see you as stronger and a potential 'threat' give you a wider berth.

On a more serious note would getting a mobilty scooter be any help? I am guessing this has been asked before but dont remember the answer. I know when I am dizzy I cant use my power trike because it is not safe for me to drive it.

I hope the loud music helped.
 >hatandscarf<

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2017, 10:44:03 AM »
The mobility scooter's a good idea but sadly it wouldn't help.  My distance/location visual perception and also my hand/eye coordination aren't good enough.  Having said that, my vision's varied massively over the years, so who knows in the future?

I like the idea of builders clothes.  My big worry would be that people might think "She says she can't work, but I see her going off to work so she's just pretending."  Yes, we're now living in a society where I'm more worried about whether people would falsely accuse me of being a benefits cheat than about whether I could get nasty injuries falling over, because things get so nasty if someone suspects you of cheating, no matter how innocent you are.

Incidentally, things began to get heated between me and a friend before we agreed to change subject because we value our friendship.  She was pushing me to do voluntary work and I was saying that on past experience, the DWP bombard you with paperwork asking just what are you doing and for whom, and a lot of the sort of stuff I'd be interested in and good at would be little bits of short term stuff for little charities and community groups.  Surely not, she said.  Oh yes, I said, demands for official letters, precise details as to what I'd be doing etc.

I told her that I now won't try it because I'm concerned that it only takes someone with targets to meet to click on 'change of circumstances' and I'll find everything reviewed, months of paperwork and stress.  Surely not, she kept insisting.  I told her I read the news stories, I read the statistics.  Surely not, she didn't believe me etc.

What I couldn't get through to her is that if you were considering investing your money, you'd consider the balance of profit versus risk and you might decide the level of risk of a particular type of investment was too low to be worth the level of risk, even though someone else would say they were fine with that level of risk.  Were that not so, there wouldn't be such a wide range of investment products and such a wide gap between the ways in which different sorts of people invest.

I'm investing my time, my hopes, my dreams, my peace of mind.  I used to see myself as a coward but now I see myself as a cautious investor.  The risk of my benefits being reviewed and wrongly turned down may be low, but I'm entitled not to take that risk and to stick with my 'low profit investment'.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

lankou

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2697
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2017, 11:10:47 AM »
the DWP

The Department of Woe and Punishment.

SunshineMeadows

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7521
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2017, 11:56:20 AM »
Quote
I'm investing my time, my hopes, my dreams, my peace of mind.  I used to see myself as a coward but now I see myself as a cautious investor.  The risk of my benefits being reviewed and wrongly turned down may be low, but I'm entitled not to take that risk and to stick with my 'low profit investment'.

Absolutely and this is one of the reasons why I class Ouch Too as a hobby not as a voluntary role.
 >angel<

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2017, 12:58:40 PM »
Ah well, you see, this is where you need to see things differently...

I've been thinking about the future.  You see, I've paid into private pensions and could draw down if I wish, and also have an inheritance in the offing.  So there will come a point at which I can tell the ESA department to shove it, and do what work I can, when I can, and not worry if it goes pearshaped.

But then there's the CV thing.  I watched various Youtube videos about gaps in CVs and then chanced on a 'how to get back to work after a gap' type video that I thought was the same sort of thing.  It was by a contractor to the DWP (Ingeus? not sure.)  They showed an application form and said you must put all your relevant work experience.  "All???!" I thought.  Then I got it.  The assumption that if you're out of work, that all you've got in the way of relevant 'experience' is work experience, and that there's next to none.

Then I thought of certain people I know.  I come from what I'll call a mixed family.  Top and bottom, as it were.  I looked at a Who's Who entry for a titled relative.  Yes, there it was.  What they'd done.  But not what you might think of as 'work experience' or 'jobs' but 'positions held'.

So to be fair, my friend has a point in that there's probably stuff I could do in relation to mental illness and disability where I'd be the one on a committee or panel that's the 'expert by experience', thus would be the 'research subject' on one bit of paper and the 'research panel member' on another bit of paper.

So, Sunshine, no this isn't a voluntary role.  But you could, if you like, win an award from a disability community group in recognition of your importance in the disability activism community as a role model...

Seriously, if the need arises, design the certificate and get the signatures from us.  No one will ever see it anyway, but if you want to show it, you only need one signature which one of us could send by post.

I wish I'd realised this years and years ago. 

People at the bottom of the social stack have CVs with 'jobs'.  People higher up have CVs with 'posts held' and 'awards'.

BTW - any mums out there?  You didn't hire a stall at the school jumble sale, you took a key role as a community leader in fundraising for your child's school.

Now where's my certificate for lasting at least two months without an ominous brown envelope from the DWP?
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

bulekingfisher

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2017, 10:55:59 AM »
Hello Sunny Clouds

Two days ago my support worker was pushing me in my wheelchair to the bus stop + a cyclist wizzed by + I nearly fainted with shook as there was less that 6 inch's between the chair + the bike but nastily I wanted to push a stick  in between the spokes causing him to go flying head first + he would never ride on the footpath again.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2017, 11:19:13 AM »
It must be more scary when you're nearly knocked over by a cyclist than when I am, because at least when I fall, the only difficulty getting up is the initial emotional shock and then the fact that this year I've put a lot of weight on and because I'm more and more reluctant to go out, my muscles aren't very strong, but I can get up if I take my time and the ground's not to slippery (e.g. with mud).

By contrast, I work from the basic assumption that if someone needs a wheelchair to get about, it's a fair assumption they'd struggle to get up, and if they need either an electric wheelchair or someone to push their chair, I take as a starting point that they'd need others to pick them up.

I don't know why cyclists can't get the general principles...

Cyclist on road - right of way over pedestrian, but pedestrians have right to cross road, therefore cyclist has duty of care not to turn corners etc. so fast they can't see a pedestrian that's already on the road.  The pedestrian is entitled to behave in a manner consistent with the cyclist obeying the law as to things like speed limits and red lights.

Pedestrian on pedestrian crossing - has right of way over cyclist but also has a duty of care not to suddenly step out into a cyclist's reasonable braking space.

Cyclist and pedestrian on pavement - cyclist is committing a criminal offence if in England and Wales, therefore pedestrian has right of way.  Yes, a 'pavement' is, in effect, a 'pedestrian crossing'.

I bet everyone here gets that.  We all understand it, don't we?  I used to cycle.  I clearly understood it.  So why do so many cyclists now not get it?

Actually, I've a theory as to why, but it relates to historical misunderstandings and would take umpteen paragraphs to explain.

(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Mabelcat

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1598
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2017, 06:53:09 PM »
Many years ago I was knocked off my bike by a pedestrian.  She stepped out into the road to hail a taxi and knocked me flying.  She then got in the cab and left me lying in the middle of the road.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2017, 09:19:43 PM »
Yes, it's easy for pedestrians also to be at fault in pedestrian/cyclist encounters.  Just a moment's thought and care makes all the difference.

At the risk of boring people, a theory on a drift in cyclists' perception about cycling on pavements where I live and some other places.

Firstly, recent phenomenon - shared pavements with poor markings, encouraging concepts that pavements are cycling places, not that cycle paths can go alongside pavements.

Secondly, in England & Wales, cycling on the pavement has been an offence for over a hundred years.  However, the age of criminal responsibility is ten, so under that age they can't do you for it.  I believe that in the past that mapped fairly tidily onto bike sizes, i.e. primary school children on small-wheeled bikes and older children on large-wheel bikes.   This then led to an everyday perception that it was the size of the bike wheel that was what mattered, and occasionally I still encounter reference to bike wheel sizes.

However, 'chopper bikes' came in, then 'mountain bikes', gradualy raising the age of small wheel bike riders, and causing the cycling on pavement ok age to rise until now it's increasingly seen as ok in general even if you have big wheels.

I don't know how to change this, but my gut feeling is not to emphasise that cycling on pavements is an offence, but to emphasise that pavements are the equivalent of pedestrian crossings and that pedestrians have the right of way.

This could be pushed alongside a message to pedestrians to remember that they're supposed to either use proper crossings or take care when crossing roads, and also messages in relation to motorists.

But we don't get public information campaigns like that any more, do we, unless by charities and campaign groups.  I can mentally picture an old public information film about pedestrian crossings with Dad's Army actors in their characters.   I don't suppose it would happen now. 

I bet it would be cost-effective in terms of public cost dealing with the aftermath of accidents to run a campaign.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8015
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2017, 11:38:34 AM »
Quote
...nastily I wanted to push a stick  in between the spokes causing him to go flying head first + he would never ride on the footpath again.

Seems a reasonable enough reaction to have in thought, not in deed!

Quote
..my gut feeling is not to emphasise that cycling on pavements is an offence, but to emphasise that pavements are the equivalent of pedestrian crossings and that pedestrians have the right of way.

 >thumbsup<  and I can actually understand why some cyclists, especially children, take to the pavements to avoid holding up motor vehicles on the narrower roads - but if they could all pay full attention to their direction and speed instead of zipping in and out and getting perilously close to any pedestrians, that would be ideal!  Unfortunately we live in a world where there are inconsiderate idiots from all road-and-pavement-user categories (I've been startled by, and had to dodge more than once,  persons using an electric mobility scooter who assume total right of way for themselves - and heaven help anyone who's in their way....)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4173
Re: More dangerous cyclists
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2017, 01:59:36 PM »
On another site ('Mustardland'), someone started a thread about 'pet hates' and included mobility scooters.  I asked what she hated about them, did she prefer an electric wheelchair or were both a pain and did she prefer using a manual wheelchair.  She exploded with an expletive, accusing me of turning a jokey thread into a serious one.  We ended up apologising to each other, her for reacting the way she did, and me for taking umbrage over her reaction.  It hadn't occurred to her that anyone might hate using a mobility scooter rather than encountering one used by someone else, and I had only taken the comment one way.

But if I found myself needing to ride around on something, a scooter might seem a good idea but some seem so big and clumsy.  I'd hate to try to get around in one, but on the other hand I have a mental image of electric wheelchairs as sort of tall and thin and for some reason sort of expect them to topple over.

Just a thought - didn't someone at some point come up with a device that had a single wheel and handlebars and a motor that you can clip onto the front of an ordinary wheelchair?  Comparing that with a scooter, I mentally compare it with my experience of driving a mini versus driving a long-base landrover.

I'm still seriously considering something hi-vis, though. 
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)