Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Protesters against “reckless” cyclists block Hackney street

Residents of Blackstone Estate want cycle path put in London Fields so cyclists don't pass in front of their homes...

Protesters against “reckless” cyclists – including a mother who says her son was left with a facial scar after he was knocked over by someone on a bike who immediately rode off – have blocked a street in the London Borough of Hackney.

Residents of the Blackstone Estate, which borders London Fields, are calling on the local council to put a bike lane in the park itself to avoid conflict between cyclists and pedestrians outside their homes, reports the Hackney Gazette.

The newspaper reports that yesterday morning, some of the people living on the estate, holding placards, put up fences on London Fields West Side, meaning that cyclists either had to make a diversion or dismount to get through.

They also asked passers-by – whom the Hackney Gazette described as “confused” – to sign a petition campaigning for a cycle path to be installed so that people can ride through the park itself – although as we have previously reported here on road.cc, there have been concerns about people riding too fast there, leading the council to install speed monitors.

One resident said: “Children come out here on their way to school and they can hear a car but they can't hear a bike. Kids have fallen down and been injured badly.”

Another, Jacqueline Hoilett, spoke of how her son had been knocked over by a cyclist who rode off afterwards.

She said: “He literally just stepped onto the path and the bike just hit him and he went flying over the handlebars and fell in the middle of the tarmac. The cyclist was an adult man and just cycled off. He has a scar on his head now.

“I understand bikes are good for the environment, but the council aren't thinking about the crossover between the environment and people's immediate safety,” she added.

According to the Hackney Gazette’s report, the council has proposed putting shrubs and flowerbeds outside the houses, but the protesters do not think that will resolve the situation.

Cyclists trying to make their way through acknowledged that while there may be a problem at the location, targeting them wasn’t the solution.

One said: “This is a public highway, and there's no sign to say it's not. There's clearly a lot of issues here with regard to what this space actually is, but lone cyclists really aren't the problem. What you're doing here is segregating yourselves.”

Another, Andy Wilkinson, said: “I can see their perspective and it is a really busy area. There needs to be a bit of infrastructure here that helps both sides, but cyclists are generally really considerate people.”

In 2017, we reported how parents of children at London Fields Primary School, which lies across the park, had different concerns – calling for cars to be banned at the time students arrive at the school and leave it, due to air pollution.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
muppetkeeper | 5 years ago
1 like

I always slow down in urban areas such as these, those pesky kids can break a spoke if you are not careful.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to muppetkeeper | 5 years ago
1 like

muppetkeeper wrote:

I always slow down in urban areas such as these, those pesky kids can break a spoke if you are not careful.

It's really difficult cleaning blood from disc brakes as well.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
10 likes

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over.

Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
6 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

I could not agree more.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
6 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

This is a perfectly reasonable view, and one I have adopted myself, and have avoided hitting children as a result.

What I find rather difficult to swallow, is that these rules only apply to cyclists.  A driver in the same situation who struck a child would almost certainly not be blamed, but a cyclist would.  This is a double standard and until it changes and all similar hypocrisies stop, then we are being discriminated against and held to a higher standard than everybody else.

See my previous post about cyclists always being in the wrong.

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

If you are riding on a residential street, or driving for that matter, then you must expect children to literally run out in the road. They are children, they make mistakes. Responsible adults need to accomodate them and modify their own behaviours, not expect every 5 year old to be tied to their Mother's apron strings or fully trained in the art of not getting run over. Cyclists have even less excuse to be involved in a collision in such an environment, we have a height advantage, better visibility, unimpeded hearing (deaf cyclists aside) and should have much better situational awareness.

This is a perfectly reasonable view, and one I have adopted myself, and have avoided hitting children as a result.

What I find rather difficult to swallow, is that these rules only apply to cyclists.  A driver in the same situation who struck a child would almost certainly not be blamed, but a cyclist would.  This is a double standard and until it changes and all similar hypocrisies stop, then we are being discriminated against and held to a higher standard than everybody else.

See my previous post about cyclists always being in the wrong.

 

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
2 likes

Mungecrundle wrote:

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

As both a cyclist and husband, your official designation is "scapegoat."

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

My own policy is to always assume that I am in the wrong.

This works for both marriage and driving.

As both a cyclist and husband, your official designation is "scapegoat."

I've made my choices...

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
9 likes

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Avatar
brooksby replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Oh, is THAT the Real Story there? 

(I remember when that was in the news, and have seen all the (not legal) zebra crossings painted there, and hand-painted 'slow down' signs all along that section of the B&B Railway Path).

Avatar
Sriracha replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Sriracha | 5 years ago
3 likes

Sriracha wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Thank you for proving so conclusively my proposal that cyclists are always wrong.

As I recall, the child was in the bushes and invisible, but of course the cyclist should have seen him with his x-ray vision.  Even travelling at a relatively slow speed, if someone runs out right in front of you, you're going to hit them.  Perhaps we should all get off and walk?  Clearly, your view is that the only people with any responibility in any collision are cyclists.

Thanks again, and don't forget to chant to yourself a hundred times a day "cyclists are always wrong."  Perhaps you could do stickers for cars?

 

Avatar
Sriracha replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Sriracha wrote:
burtthebike wrote:

Reminds me of an incident on the Bristol-Bath path about ten years ago, with a mother in the local rag demanding that cyclists slow down and take care after her six year old son was mown down by a cyclist, who just rode away.  I was so concerned I phoned the reporter and asked if she had any more details and was told that the woman and her child were on opposite sides of the path, she saw the cyclist coming and called the boy to her, into the path of the cyclist.  The cyclist had braked and tried to avoid the collision but had struck the child.  He stopped, made sure the boy was ok and not injured and then rode on.

But the newspaper report was that he was a reckless, inconsiderate, dangerous fool, not that the mother should have taken a little more care on a path which she knew was shared with cyclists.

Seeing the child and its mother separated by the path the cyclist was taking, any responsible rider would have assumed the worst and slowed down already just in case. This cyclists was clearly going at such a speed that when the predictable happened the best they could do was to hit the child. Bravo.

Thank you for proving so conclusively my proposal that cyclists are always wrong.

As I recall, the child was in the bushes and invisible, but of course the cyclist should have seen him with his x-ray vision.  Even travelling at a relatively slow speed, if someone runs out right in front of you, you're going to hit them.  Perhaps we should all get off and walk?  Clearly, your view is that the only people with any responibility in any collision are cyclists.

Thanks again, and don't forget to chant to yourself a hundred times a day "cyclists are always wrong."  Perhaps you could do stickers for cars?

 

"Sorry mate, I didn't see you!"

Avatar
Chris | 5 years ago
2 likes

The residents do have a point about the crappy infrastructure, but that's not the cyclists fault.

I think if the pavement was on the other side it would create a buffer between the houses and the road and be way safer, but until they get the council to make improvements, anyone whose garden gate opens directly onto a road ought to be more careful.

Avatar
StuInNorway | 5 years ago
2 likes

Norway and this area particularly has a high number of electric cars, and I can assure you yo do hear them, even at lower speeds. Anything over 10mph and the tyre sound is there is people listen.
That said, the electric busses can be deceptively quiet. Had them sneak up behind me cycling a few times.
From what's written in the article, it does sound like there are a number of people are too used to living on a cul-de-sac and simply walk into the road without ensuring it's safe.  No excuse for the guy riding off after an accident with a child, but somehow I feel we are not getting the whole story either.

Avatar
perfect1964 | 5 years ago
6 likes

I also know the area well having cycled to work most days for the last two years. Since January I’ve also ran through the park a couple of mornings a week. I can say that most cyclists were an inconsiderate nuisance and I can well imagine parents feeling aggrieved. It’s a park! They’re narrow residential streets close to schools. So slow down and let pedestrians pass. And kids do stuff like run out. 

Sadly great chunks of the cyclists I see on my commutes are no less selfish, no less entitled than the  motorists they so readily whine about. And both seem to view pedestrians with equal contempt.

And yes, I’m on the wrong forum to suggest cyclists don’t have the sun shining out their nether regions at all times.

Avatar
pedalster replied to perfect1964 | 5 years ago
2 likes

perfect1964 wrote:

I also know the area well having cycled to work most days for the last two years. Since January I’ve also ran through the park a couple of mornings a week. I can say that most cyclists were an inconsiderate nuisance and I can well imagine parents feeling aggrieved. It’s a park! They’re narrow residential streets close to schools. So slow down and let pedestrians pass. And kids do stuff like run out. 

Sadly great chunks of the cyclists I see on my commutes are no less selfish, no less entitled than the  motorists they so readily whine about. And both seem to view pedestrians with equal contempt.

And yes, I’m on the wrong forum to suggest cyclists don’t have the sun shining out their nether regions at all times.

 

I think I am with you on this. Also the warmer weather is tempting a lot more cyclists out. I have to use 2 way shared paths, and the sight of a wobbling, almost out of control , going too fast for the ability of a bloke on a bike is pretty common and eckin damgerous. Where the hell were you in winter to learn yaself some bike handling skills?

Avatar
Jem PT | 5 years ago
2 likes

Electric cars are quiet at low speeds and so not heard by pedestrians. 

As one who cycles in London I would say that too many people use their ears to check if the rosd is clear and as pointed out many times above, parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids how to cross roads, even quiet ones like this. Cycling in town I am always on the lookout for errant pedestrians - a bell is useless, only shouting works!

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to Jem PT | 5 years ago
2 likes
Jem PT wrote:

Electric cars are quiet at low speeds and so not heard by pedestrians. 

As one who cycles in London I would say that too many people use their ears to check if the rosd is clear and as pointed out many times above, parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids how to cross roads, even quiet ones like this. Cycling in town I am always on the lookout for errant pedestrians - a bell is useless, only shouting works!

Some electric cars emit a white noise at speeds below 30 mph. Our Nissan leaf does, but our Tesla doesnt. The Hyundai Kona EV has a white noise emmision too.
Over 30 mph, tyre noise is the loudest noise. I fully agree teach kids to look and listen, twice before crossing roads. Also berate them about being a phone zombie

Avatar
CXR94Di2 replied to Jem PT | 5 years ago
1 like
Jem PT wrote:

Electric cars are quiet at low speeds and so not heard by pedestrians. 

As one who cycles in London I would say that too many people use their ears to check if the rosd is clear and as pointed out many times above, parents bear the responsibility of teaching their kids how to cross roads, even quiet ones like this. Cycling in town I am always on the lookout for errant pedestrians - a bell is useless, only shouting works!

Some electric cars emit a white noise at speeds below 30 mph. Our Nissan leaf does, but our Tesla doesnt. The Hyundai Kona EV has a white noise emmision too.
Over 30 mph, tyre noise is the loudest noise. I fully agree teach kids to look and listen, twice before crossing roads. Also berate them about being a phone zombie

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

Where are all these silent electric cars I keep hearing (or not) about.  The Teslas I have encountered are noisy, generally being driven a bit too hard (you know what I'm talking about), somewhat quieter than the Audi, BMW or Mercs that the've obviously replaced but they make proper noise.  Some of the Hybrids in town, if driven in an efficient manner don't make too much engine noise, but tyre/road noise is quite audible, I have never not been able to hear them. 

I don't know if it's because I'm trying to always listen but I am very rarely suprised by a passing cyclist when riding or walking.  My own 2 inch nobblies are not silent, definitely buzz, the superlight semislicks sound like rumbly balloons, and even my mostly slick Top Tourings make some noise.  My Ice Claws sound like I'm riding on rice crispies.  

Avatar
schlepcycling | 5 years ago
2 likes

On Google streetview and if you go back about 10ft looking in the same direction there's a blue cycle path sign on a bollard on the left and another on the right going the other way.  Presumably the gap on the right side of the barrier in the photo is to allow cyclists through.

https://tinyurl.com/y37mmto6

https://tinyurl.com/y2344rlk

Avatar
SHawkins83 | 5 years ago
12 likes

I used to cycle down this exact bit of road every day on the way to and from work so know it well.

It's not a particularly busy stretch as it's a dead end for cars where it joins the park, so the only motor traffic would be the half dozen or so people that live there. One of the residents is well known locally as a prominent environmentalist who turned her 'car parking' space into a mini park in protest at the amount of space given over to cars.

I can't personally see the point in putting a cycle path in the park - there's already one on the far side of the park which is very well used and generally (except on very sunny days when the park is busy) well respected by those on foot.

You could make an argument for turning that whole bit of road in to a shared pedestrian/cycle route and doing away with the parking bays. Keep the cyclists to the east side (away from the houses) and therefore reduce any conflict. The road only serves as parking for residents as I said.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

You're all missing the point; cyclists are to blame.  It's always their fault.  Any presumed liability law in this country would start from that premise, because it's what the majority believe and we're a democracy.

Avatar
bikeman01 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Sounds like these residents and their children need a lesson in using their eyes and not just their ears when they cross the road/cycle path. As do most pedestrians these days. It will be carnage when we're all driving electric cars.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to bikeman01 | 5 years ago
4 likes

bikeman01 wrote:

Sounds like these residents and their children need a lesson in using their eyes and not just their ears when they cross the road/cycle path. As do most pedestrians these days. It will be carnage when we're all driving electric cars.

A few years ago, when electric cars were first being mooted, wasn't there some debate on whether to make them utter a fictional 'car noise' for precisely that purpose?  The silent electric car was to have a recorded 'brum-brum!' sound so that people can hear it coming... (with Porsche engine noises for higher end cars...  ).

Avatar
jh27 replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
3 likes

brooksby wrote:

bikeman01 wrote:

Sounds like these residents and their children need a lesson in using their eyes and not just their ears when they cross the road/cycle path. As do most pedestrians these days. It will be carnage when we're all driving electric cars.

A few years ago, when electric cars were first being mooted, wasn't there some debate on whether to make them utter a fictional 'car noise' for precisely that purpose?  The silent electric car was to have a recorded 'brum-brum!' sound so that people can hear it coming... (with Porsche engine noises for higher end cars...  ).

 

From July this year new electric vehicles and hybrids will need to be fitted with a device that emits a sound when the vehicle is travelling at less than 12 mph.  I'm not a fan of the idea - but that said I wouldn't mind buying one to fit to my bike so it sounds like a car  1

 

I don't know, but as it is designed to help pedestrians who don't look, I suspect that the minimum sound level of the device will be 150dB so that it can be heard over their noise cancelling headphones.

Avatar
Sriracha | 5 years ago
4 likes

Let's be clear here, it is residents, not the bogeymen motorists, who are complaining about cyclists. There comes a point where cyclists should listen and try to understand the other person's point of view.

Avatar
leaway2 replied to Sriracha | 5 years ago
5 likes
Sriracha wrote:

Let's be clear here, it is residents, not the bogeymen motorists, who are complaining about cyclists. There comes a point where cyclists should listen and try to understand the other person's point of view.

I think you've wandered into the wrong forum, mate  3

Avatar
leaway2 replied to Sriracha | 5 years ago
2 likes
Sriracha wrote:

Let's be clear here, it is residents, not the bogeymen motorists, who are complaining about cyclists. There comes a point where cyclists should listen and try to understand the other person's point of view.

I think you've wandered into the wrong forum, mate  3

Pages

Latest Comments