Leicester to put up 'considerate cyclists welcome' signs in city centre

vonhelmet wrote:

I lived in Leicester for a couple of years. Shithole or not, the standard of driving was abysmal. They should be worrying about considerate drivers.

i don't think bad driving is endemic to leicester...

bigshape wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

I lived in Leicester for a couple of years. Shithole or not, the standard of driving was abysmal. They should be worrying about considerate drivers.

 

i don't think bad driving is endemic to leicester...

No, but it was some of the worst I’ve come across.

Bolton is likewise dreadful.

vonhelmet wrote:

bigshape wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

I lived in Leicester for a couple of years. Shithole or not, the standard of driving was abysmal. They should be worrying about considerate drivers.

 

i don't think bad driving is endemic to leicester...

No, but it was some of the worst I’ve come across.

Bolton is likewise dreadful.

I rarely get the opportunity to cycle outside of Leicestershire so I don't have a benchmark against which to judge it. What I can say is that it seems to me that, whilst still having a long way to go, it has improved over the last few years. I think the publicity surrounding the Sam Boulton tragedy has helped calm a few hotheads.

Don't get me wrong, I still have regular close passes - but they are a lot fewer than they were. I bought a Cycliq camera two or three years ago, and in the early days, I was recording a close pass more or less every day. Now it's relatively rare I have one that concerns me enough to archive the footage.

You may wonder why I only archive the footage and don't report them. Well, I have done in the past and my experience is that Leicestershire police are as much use as a chocolate condom. They are the force who carried out their version of operation close pass over the summer on the basis that there would be more bikes on the road. Needless to say that the reduction in traffic you get during "factory fortnight" meant they didn't experience a single close pass and so concluded that Leicester doesn't have a close pass problem. FFS!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Honestly though I think I'd rather ride a bike in Cas or Wakey than London, I'd also feel far safer in Casvegas than London after dark in an area I didn't know.

Yorkshire is certainly a nicer place to ride a bike than it was pre-grand depart.  Cycling is huge up there now; you do seem to get a bit more respect on the roads.

The thing about cycling in London is, most of the traffic doesn't really move, and when it does, it moves slowly. Whereas up around Wakey, you often find yourself sharing an A road with traffic doing 60+, and you're always at risk of some teenage arsehole launching something at you from their car, which happened to me twice.

So I feel safter down in The Smoke. Never been mugged/stabbed/shot either, which even many Londoners now seem to think is an occupational hazard of living here. We'll all probably die of resipratory disease instead, given the shocking air quality.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

London for me on a bike is simply horrible.

Nowhere else compares, yes it's a bloody big place but the threat of harm is ridiculously high in so many places comparative to anywhere else

If you know your way around the inner (pre-20th C) city it can be fantastic - loads of quiet shortcuts with lots to see, traffic calming, filtered permeability and cycle contraflows, large parks and often remarkably little traffic on side streets.

Major arterial routes can be unpleasant, particularly if they don't have bus lanes - but they can be everywhere, and at least London drivers expect cyclists these day. Most trouble I've had has been in places where they don't. 

The segregated superhighways are good - but marred by inconsiderate riding at peak times. Likewise, you need to be alert for zombie peds at busy times in town.

Perhaps best of all, there's the considerable satisfaction of knowing that you are often the fastest thing around. I particularly enjoy crusing past ridiculous supercars stuck in traffic (so much noise for no movement!).

I'm not sure if "harm" was a reference to things other than road safety. If so, it's not a big thing - the current fashion for fatal stabbings is almost entirely confined to gang culture and those around it. Not good but not a direct risk to most of us (perhaps more would be done if it was?). I'd worry far more about random, drunken violence in other UK cities.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think those signs can be justified as it's a pedestrianised area and as cyclists are the faster moving traffic, then they should be held more responsible for safety. Unfortunately, a lot of pedestrians do look at their phones and have zero awareness of what's around them, so you have to be careful when cycling through.

However, the same philosophy (biggest/fastest vehicles should be the most responsible) should carry through to the roads and we should be seeing lots of "Considerate Drivers Welcomed" signs around. Maybe some "Motorists: thankyou for driving considerately around cyclists" signs as well.

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

But public opinion and the authorities repeatedly put that onus on cyclists using roads. 

davel wrote:

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

Yes you can.  Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different?  There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-...

There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it.  Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?

Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned?  What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

Yes you can.  Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different?  There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-...

There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it.  Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?

Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned?  What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.

Way too many mobile phone users pedestrians nowadays seem to assume that the onus is on everyone else to not walk into them, rather than looking up from their screen long enough to look where they're going.  The equivalent really would be a cyclist riding along then moving right, then turning, then stopping, all while not bothering to look because the motorists should be avoiding them.  And we all know how that ends, don't we?

And don't get me started on mobility scooters!  If bicycles are too dangerous for pedestrianised areas, and completely banned from indoor areas, then why are electric motorised mobility scooters allowed to zip around all over the place (for zip around, they do).

(I know - "because they are a mobility aid", but some bikes are too; mobility scooters weigh a lot more than bikes do, with (presumably?) more potential to harm pedestrians).

brooksby wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

Yes you can.  Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different?  There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-...

There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it.  Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?

Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned?  What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.

Way too many mobile phone users pedestrians nowadays seem to assume that the onus is on everyone else to not walk into them, rather than looking up from their screen long enough to look where they're going.  The equivalent really would be a cyclist riding along then moving right, then turning, then stopping, all while not bothering to look because the motorists should be avoiding them.  And we all know how that ends, don't we?

Again, back to what is meant by 'onus'. If it means mild disapproval, with tutting, for peds walking round aimlessly and bumping into people, I'm kind of with you.

But I'm all in favour of peds being able to do pretty much anything peddy in a pedestrianised area, so if that disapproval stretched to anything official I'm dead against it. Ultimately, if people want to do 'the worm' through shopping centres, it's fine with me. 

davel wrote:

But I'm all in favour of peds being able to do pretty much anything peddy in a pedestrianised area, so if that disapproval stretched to anything official I'm dead against it.

So does that mean you're in favour of pedestrians not bothering to look, or head down looking at their screen, knocking each other over?  Whatever your mode of transport, if you're moving, you really, really must look where you're going.

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

But I'm all in favour of peds being able to do pretty much anything peddy in a pedestrianised area, so if that disapproval stretched to anything official I'm dead against it.

So does that mean you're in favour of pedestrians not bothering to look, or head down looking at their screen, knocking each other over?  Whatever your mode of transport, if you're moving, you really, really must look where you're going.

Not really, but the rights to just wander and meander need to be balanced with the actual damage done. Peds just wandering and not paying attention might be inconvenient, but peds colliding with other peds do zero damage. It isn't a problem that needs to be addressed. Don't forget, we're talking about 'pedestrianised' areas ('shared space' is a cop-out term - it's an area where peds move around freely that bikes are still allowed in to). There would be no justification in bringing a 'no heads in screens' rule in, for example, based on KSIs from inconvenient meetings of hips and some glaring.

If you, society and the authorities adjusted your last statement to 'you need to look where you're going in accordance with how much damage you can do at the time', we'd live in a happier place.

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

Yes you can.  Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different?  There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-...

There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it.  Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?

Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned?  What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.

The issue with pedestrianised areas is that pedestrians can be deaf, blind, not looking, 6 years old or have any number of conditions that would mean that they can not be relied on to follow rules that a typical cyclist would expect. Pedestrians have ultimate priority in these areas (and also on shared use paths and to some extent, roads) and the onus is definitely on the faster vehicle to avoid collisions.

You may have a point with mobility buggies, but I doubt that the KSI figures involving them are anything to be concerned about.

hawkinspeter wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

davel wrote:

This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can't put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.

Yes you can.  Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different?  There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-...

There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it.  Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?

Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned?  What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.

The issue with pedestrianised areas is that pedestrians can be deaf, blind, not looking, 6 years old or have any number of conditions that would mean that they can not be relied on to follow rules that a typical cyclist would expect. Pedestrians have ultimate priority in these areas (and also on shared use paths and to some extent, roads) and the onus is definitely on the faster vehicle to avoid collisions.

You may have a point with mobility buggies, but I doubt that the KSI figures involving them are anything to be concerned about.

I agree.

To the other comments, I suppose it depends what we mean by 'onus'. I was using it in a more 'official' capacity and saying that liability should lie with the cyclist if one collided with a pedestrian in a pedestrianised area. I think that's what society expects - but then contrast that with the lack of presumed liability on the roads, and the emphasis put on cyclists, the CPS, defence lawyers and judges referring to the cyclist's behaviour, lighting and clothing. Total double standards.

srchar wrote:

The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.

Leicester is my adopted city and I don't agree with you about it being a shithole, as I'm sure most of the people who live here don't. I'm really glad you won't be visiting - you and your nasty opinions wouldn't be welcome.

tonyleatham wrote:

srchar wrote:

The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.

Leicester is my adopted city and I don't agree with you about it being a shithole, as I'm sure most of the people who live here don't. I'm really glad you won't be visiting - you and your nasty opinions wouldn't be welcome.

How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they're "nasty".

srchar wrote:

tonyleatham wrote:

srchar wrote:

The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.

Leicester is my adopted city and I don't agree with you about it being a shithole, as I'm sure most of the people who live here don't. I'm really glad you won't be visiting - you and your nasty opinions wouldn't be welcome.

How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they're "nasty".

TBF, calling somewhere an 'utter shithole' is bound to piss off people who live there.

Zebulebu wrote:

srchar wrote:

tonyleatham wrote:

srchar wrote:

The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.

Leicester is my adopted city and I don't agree with you about it being a shithole, as I'm sure most of the people who live here don't. I'm really glad you won't be visiting - you and your nasty opinions wouldn't be welcome.

How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they're "nasty".

TBF, calling somewhere an 'utter shithole' is bound to piss off people who live there.

I thought that too when I said Bolton was a shithole, someone came along in its defence, then a couple of Bolton natives came out and agreed with me. Go figure!

I think Wrecsam is a shithole too, but it's my shithole.

Just for reference I live in none of the places mentioned.

srchar wrote:

tonyleatham wrote:

srchar wrote:

The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.

Leicester is my adopted city and I don't agree with you about it being a shithole, as I'm sure most of the people who live here don't. I'm really glad you won't be visiting - you and your nasty opinions wouldn't be welcome.

How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they're "nasty".

So you don't think your opinions are nasty then? You condemn a city that is home to over 400,000 people as being a shithole, and don't like being called nasty as a consequence? There, there, didn't mean to bruise your delicate feelings. If you're going to dish it out, have the balls to take any flak your unpleasant attitudes provoke.

tonyleatham wrote:

didn't mean to bruise your delicate feelings

Not sure if serious. I could have sworn you were the one getting upset (on behalf of Leicester, remember?)