I'm now supposed to believe that I'm at risk of cars mounting the pavement and wiping me out, but my perception tells me that this isn't very likely. I'd put that up there with something falling off a building.
Perhaps.
In London, I walk a lot because it's often faster than taking the tube or a bus - and it's also good exercise. Therefore, for me, the risk of harm from a non law-abiding cyclist (not sure why anyone asked what I had to fear from a law-abiding one) is high - and proven because I've been hit.
An anecdote is not proof.
Statistically you are at vastly greater risk from motor vehicles in London than cyclists.
It is quite possibly your perception that cyclists are more reckless and in greater proximity to pedestrians than motor vehicles. And maybe they are. But why? Because pedestrians aren't at significant risk from cyclists. So it's not a major public safety concern to curb this anti-social behaviour, it's annoying but not objectively dangerous.
I've also witnessed many other people getting clipped, and on crossings there have been countless situations where cyclists (and not just couriers, but more likely commuters or those on a Boris Bike) where pedestrians have fought back by attempting to grab those who come through, or even punching them. The cyclists never hang around to fight back - as they clearly know they were in the wrong.
That doesn't describe harm, it describes anti-social behaviour.
On the pavement, there's also what I'd consider a big difference between cycling slowly (or just creeping, even walking with your feet) and the cycling that is more common - namely at speed and weaving in and around people - because the cyclist sees pedestrians as an annoying obstruction akin to the cars and buses that annoy them on the street.
Where are you seeing all these cyclists on the pavement? It's my experience that pavement cycling is de rigeur out in the provinces but less common in London. What I do see in London is cyclists going through red lights.
The fatal mistake is that pedestrians don't all walk in a straight line, especially children. It's only down to luck and perhaps a cyclist managing to stop in time, or swerve, that there aren't more serious accidents.
Well it's not so much luck as inevitable. Bikes make up a quarter of rush hour traffic in central London. That's quite significant volume, so luck doesn't really come into it - if bikes were actually dangerous to pedestrians as opposed to merely annoying, then you would see large numbers of serious accidents and deaths.
We can say that for certain, because of the sheer numbers. If we see a single incident between cyclist and pedestrian we can say 'oh that was lucky, another time that pedestrian would have been wiped out'. But when we consider a whole city's accidents, we no longer need to consider luck, because if there is a real risk, then across all those thousands of daily pedestrian-cyclist encounters we would see numerous
I'm also wondering how many of these would ever be reported in any statistics? I mean, who calls the police when they get hit by an anonymous biker that is long gone? Who reports those who are illegally on the pavement who nearly hit a buggy? Nobody I bet.
'Nearly hit a buggy' is a matter of perception.
The KSI stats are pretty reliable, because they involve hospital admissions, and they show the same sort of proportions as minor injuries. So there is no reason to assume inaccuracy.
But it doesn't mean it doesn't happen because it absolutely does, and you can go and see for yourself every day of the week. In Stockholm, there's now a speed limit for cyclists (albeit one that can't be enforced) after an increase in deaths caused by pedestrians being hit by cyclists.
I'm not sure that that is true.
According to this article one particular street had a speed limit of 7 kph for cyclists:
http://www.thelocal.se/49658/20130815/
This is walking speed and unsurprisingly was ignored (cf. the speed limit on Tower Bridge of 20mph, almost universally ignored by motorists).
I don't believe that there is a city-wide speed limit for cyclists, and certainly it couldn't possibly be 7kph. It's also improbable that this speed limit resulted from some epidemic of pedestrian deaths due to bicycles. Actually according to the Wikipedia article this is one of the most famous roads in Stockholm, and a small portion is pedestrianised
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Götgatan
The 7kph speed limit is a shared space limit - they are saying 'cyclists can cycle in this very busy section of pedestrianised road, but only at walking speed'. London doesn't generally permit cycling on pedestrianised roads.
I shouldn't need to say it, but there are plenty of good cyclists out there, just a low percentage in a busy city because of the ever growing number of idiots, or arrogant people that actually argue that they're not doing anything wrong - and are usually those who then come out with loads of drivel to say that there are plenty of more serious things to worry about.
My perception is that you get a higher percentage of good cyclists in a busy city, however cities are busy and there is more conflict.
So here out in the sticks you get a fat bloke on a Toys R Us bike with no lights wobbling along the pavement and people step aside to let him past with out getting upset, whereas in London it's just too busy for this to work.
I guess the slim chance of all out nuclear war is more dangerous than a speeding cyclist going through a pedestrian crossing, so let's add that to the pot of excuses!
It's not excuses, the fact is that everyday, socially acceptable, behaviour by motorists (such as speeding, fiddling with the radio, and any of a million other distractions for car drivers) is more dangerous than any number of bicycles, and making a lot of hot air about bicycles and cyclists is real serious distraction from saving lives on the road.
)
