this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
11 points (92.3% liked)
UK Active Travel
56 readers
5 users here now
Any discussion of active travel.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a pro cycling article that's complaining about another article, which they have a screenshot of.
The article they're complaining about explicitly says the cyclists are a danger to pedestrians in the headline
So yes.
I agree OPs link is fucking horrible and not based on reality
They just know a lot of road cyclists are rage addicted and won't bother reading. They'll get mad and share the story to other cyclists who won't read it but still get mad.
Weird, here is says drivers.
Cyclists certainly can be a danger to pedestrians, personally I'm super careful when pedestrians are around, and when I'm walking on a designated shared path (probably most paths in my city now), I'll stick to one side because I know I'm not the only type of path user out there. Also, knowing cyclists go at speed, I try not to do really unpredictable things.
If you cycle with care, you probably aren't part of the demographic of careless cyclists.
Here is the article in question:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/lets-get-tough-on-the-scourge-of-rogue-cyclists/
Quotes from it:
The article is behind a paywall, but it almost exclusively focuses on the danger posed to pedestrians, and not only from cyclists, but also from scooters (which seem to be the worst) and motorists.
The headline for the article posted says drivers.
It has a screenshot of the article it's complaining about, and says right there in black and white the danger is from cyclists to pedestrians.
I thought since this wasn't a community specifically for cyclists that people would be able to see what is happening....
But apparently you all will just keep finding this days later and letting me know you only read the headline and comments
It's an article about some drivel from the telegraph, why would I read that?