Bl**dy pavement riding RLJ's...

[trustysteed]

full of unpredictable pedestrians, dogs, and, god help us, children.

again, this is assuming that the pavements are always covered in peds, dogs and children which is nonsense and that the pavement riders do their whole commute on the pavement.

i think it's safe to assume that the people on here who do admit to pavement riding do NOT ride along the pavement for miles or their whole commute. they do so only when they want to take a quick shortcut, avoid a bottleneck, take a left at a junction, etc. and we're more than confident on the road, we just like to treat ourselves now and then.

 

[thomas]

Seven months isnt adequate and how do you know the guy is really sorry? Try tell that to the victims family!

So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.

I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.

How can it be a grey area? It's in the HC in black & white - you MUST NOT ride on the pavement.

The home office (or someone) has instructed police forces not to bother pavement cyclists when they are being considerate....what is the point of having a black and white law if you don't follow it to the letter?

OK, just don't moan on here when you get a £30 FPN.

What's this? Don't tell me you are a self-gratification artist that rides on the pavement? Learn to ride on the road if you are.

On my commute there are some roads (when busy) that I would not feel comfortable going down if I wasn't 'experienced'. I would much rather people cycled along the 2 mile stretch at one point which has a pavement that I only ever see about 1 person walking down on a busy day. I would much rather that someone cycled along the pavement, considerately, to build up their confidence and fitness before going on the road.

Pavement cycling is NOT dangerous. It is all about how it is done.

The guy was cycling at an excessive speed. He could have easily have just been on the road and hit someone on a zebra crossing because he didn't see them in time and therefore couldn't stop in time.

If the bloke wasn't cycling 'furiously' and gave enough space to stop in the space he could see to be clear I would be in bed right now.

Also....for everyone on here who is whiter than white...have you ever had a mince pie on Christmas day? It's illegal. Along with a load of other stuff.

I bet £50 I can cycle on the pavement tomorrow without hitting someone.

 

[Trevrev]

So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.

I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.



The home office (or someone) has instructed police forces not to bother pavement cyclists when they are being considerate....what is the point of having a black and white law if you don't follow it to the letter?






On my commute there are some roads (when busy) that I would not feel comfortable going down if I wasn't 'experienced'. I would much rather people cycled along the 2 mile stretch at one point which has a pavement that I only ever see about 1 person walking down on a busy day. I would much rather that someone cycled along the pavement, considerately, to build up their confidence and fitness before going on the road.

Pavement cycling is NOT dangerous. It is all about how it is done.

The guy was cycling at an excessive speed. He could have easily have just been on the road and hit someone on a zebra crossing because he didn't see them in time and therefore couldn't stop in time.

If the bloke wasn't cycling 'furiously' and gave enough space to stop in the space he could see to be clear I would be in bed right now.

Also....for everyone on here who is whiter than white...have you ever had a mince pie on Christmas day? It's illegal. Along with a load of other stuff.

I bet £50 I can cycle on the pavement tomorrow without hitting someone.

A man that talks real sense.......I'm in love with you Thomas !!

 

[Garz]

Im not going to waste any more effort on this thread as it has gone adrift. I would just like to add that whilst I do not cycle on the pavement, or encourage it, that people seem to forget there are situations where this 'illegal to ride on the pavement' is downright daft and un-enforceable due to the way in which the roads have been built and adapted.

There clearly remains to be instances where it is not an offence, yet some seem to disbelieve this or continue with their tunnel vision. To me there is just as big fish to fry with cars parking on cycle lanes which dont get penalised, this however belongs in another thread with my friend lee to argue that black is indeed white.

 

[ed_o_brain]

Pavement cycliing is dangerous.

Most the time it is irritating, annoying, infuriating to pedestrians. But it is still dangerous.

It's dangerous because it helps reinforce the views of some motorists, that we SHOULD be on the pavement, not on the road. And the in turn those motorists try and enforce their views on those of us who choose to cycle on the road, usually by trying to run us off said road.

Riding on the pavement is counterproductive to us all.



When I say pavement, I am specifically talking about the footway. The raised pavement alongside a road provided for pedestrians. Footpaths (as in public rights of way) are different - they fall under different legislation. And whilst we have no right to cycle on them, it's not exactly illegal either. It's upto the landowner.

Cycling on the footway is illegal. Cycling on foot paths is upto the landowner. Cycling on the road is legal, unless a TRO prohibits it.

Black and white to me.


And for the record, if I NEED to use the pavement, I dismount and walk. And I can't actually remember a time when I have NEEDED to use the pavement in many years and many many thousand miles of cycling.

 

[Tynan]

I've never seen anywhere where the pavement was necessary

everyone I see do it, and it's a lot lately, does it to avoid lights, roadworks or because they're not prepared to wait in heavy traffic

 

[Trevrev]

Pavement cycliing is dangerous.

Most the time it is irritating, annoying, infuriating to pedestrians. But it is still dangerous.

It's dangerous because it helps reinforce the views of some motorists, that we SHOULD be on the pavement, not on the road. And the in turn those motorists try and enforce their views on those of us who choose to cycle on the road, usually by trying to run us off said road.

Riding on the pavement is counterproductive to us all.



When I say pavement, I am specifically talking about the footway. The raised pavement alongside a road provided for pedestrians. Footpaths (as in public rights of way) are different - they fall under different legislation. And whilst we have no right to cycle on them, it's not exactly illegal either. It's upto the landowner.

Cycling on the footway is illegal. Cycling on foot paths is upto the landowner. Cycling on the road is legal, unless a TRO prohibits it.

Black and white to me.


And for the record, if I NEED to use the pavement, I dismount and walk. And I can't actually remember a time when I have NEEDED to use the pavement in many years and many many thousand miles of cycling.

Right.......!!! I fed up with this..I am no longer a cyclist !!! Cyclists are very very dull people, as i've just found out.......With a couple of exceptions.
I ride a bike........Thats what i do !!! And i do it well.....Maybe not within the law......But i don't care !!!! I don't care if car drivers hate me !!! I don't care if pedestrians hate me !!!
I will carry on to the end of earth until my hardcases POP !!! hehehehe.........

 

[Garz]

So if the guy got life in prison it would make it okay? "Don't worry Mum, he's in prison forever...it was all worthwhile!" Give over, the punishment isn't there to make the victim's family feel better. Now we've got that argument out of the way, 7 months doesn't really sound like that long.

I'm pretty sure any person in this guys situation would be very remorseful.

Nice post thomas, at least some on this 'discussion' are in the same wavelength or on the fence (unbiased). I do however think this quote is somewhat hypocritical, "7 months doesn't really sound like that long" which is pretty much what I was highlighting.

At the time home office minister Paul Boateng said:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Again our laws clear as mud eh lee!

 

[ed_o_brain]

Right.......!!! I fed up with this..I am no longer a cyclist !!! Cyclists are very very dull people, as i've just found out.......With a couple of exceptions.
I ride a bike........Thats what i do !!! And i do it well.....Maybe not within the law......But i don't care !!!! I don't care if car drivers hate me !!! I don't care if pedestrians hate me !!!
I will carry on to the end of earth until my hardcases POP !!! hehehehe.........

Trevrev,
I think joining a cycling forum, making a few sporadic non-inspiring posts and then losing interest to be quite boring. But then to post the same opinion to this thread repeatedly and prolifically is incredibly boring.

Maybe I should consider it a good thing you don't consider yourself a cyclist. You can explain that to the people you annoy next time you illegally share a pavement with them.

[/ot]

I can understand the driving ban. I consider that if someone cannot operate a cycle proficiently with appropriate consideration to other road users, then perhaps they certainly shouldn't be operating a motorised vehicle.

The custodial sentence also seems to be broadly in-line with similar sentences for similar driving offences. In fact, as these kind of accidents are far less common, it's possible the offender had not properly considered the dangers. Not that I beileve this to be any kind of mitigation.

 

[Trevrev]

Trevrev,
I think joining a cycling forum, making a few sporadic non-inspiring posts and then losing interest to be quite boring. But then to post the same opinion to this thread repeatedly and prolifically is incredibly boring.

Maybe I should consider it a good thing you don't consider yourself a cyclist. You can explain that to the people you annoy next time you illegally share a pavement with them.

[/ot]

I can understand the driving ban. I consider that if someone cannot operate a cycle proficiently with appropriate consideration to other road users, then perhaps they certainly shouldn't be operating a motorised vehicle.




The custodial sentence also seems to be broadly in-line with similar sentences for similar driving offences. In fact, as these kind of accidents are far less common, it's possible the offender had not properly considered the dangers. Not that I beileve this to be any kind of mitigation.

I've just had a nice refreshing shower to wake me up a little !!!
Then i come back to you.............YAWN !!!

 

[purplepolly]

are we being trolled by a teenager

 

[Garz]

Guys save that for PM and stop being naughty!

 

[jcb]

Children.

Right, once we've all stopped waving our willies (or lack of them) around (in cycling shorts or other), it strikes me there is common ground:

- Any object moving at walking pedestrian speed with the width and visibility of a pedestrian, along a surface designated for pedestrians, would be generally socially acceptable outside of the cycling community notwithstanding what the HC says. It may frustrate some cyclists (including me) as an 'image' problem about cycling, and you may get an FPN. Your choice. You are, at that speed, only as likely to kill someone accidentally as a pedestrian. Question would be, if that's the case why not walk (or walk your bike over the bit you need to traverse if it's short - that's generally what I do).
- If you are moving with the speed and intent of a road-going object, you should be on the road. To ride in such a fashion on the pavement is unacceptable, because it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself.
- RLJing is generally not acceptable, as it poses an increased risk of injury/death to others as well as yourself, as well as being potentially disruptive to traffic flow and thus inconveniencing others. There may be very rare occasions when it is possible to RLJ with no risk to others at all. Again in that circumstance, notwithstanding the written law, it is an individual choice and judgement.
- When RLJing or using the pavement, you are breaking the law. Thus you regard the law as not applying to you. You therefore are (in my mind) morally absolving all other road/pavement users of criminal and civil liability for similarly illegal and/or dangerous activity inasmuch as it may harm you - e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over, because it was you who chose to step outside the law first. Or, if a motorist is held up by you RLJing at a crossroads, he is then entitled to cut you up, squash you against railings, nudge you forward using their bumper at lights etc. - your choice to step outside the safety afforded to you by the Highway Code and the law.

Or do different different standards apply 30 seconds down the road after you RLJ'd?

 

[marinyork]

- When RLJing or using the pavement, you are breaking the law. Thus you regard the law as not applying to you. You therefore are (in my mind) morally absolving all other road/pavement users of criminal and civil liability for similarly illegal and/or dangerous activity inasmuch as it may harm you - e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over, because it was you who chose to step outside the law first. Or, if a motorist is held up by you RLJing at a crossroads, he is then entitled to cut you up, squash you against railings, nudge you forward using their bumper at lights etc. - your choice to step outside the safety afforded to you by the Highway Code and the law.

Or do different different standards apply 30 seconds down the road after you RLJ'd?

Utter crap. None of that entitles you to vigilante aggression. In anycase the HC covers your point on that one. Sorry to disappoint you, you can't get away with such a thuggish lifestyle because the highway code actually tells you not to get angry with other people and expect errors/mistakes/deliberate acts. It's fairly good advice. Your route is the road to road rage paradise and bizarrely seems completely at odds with the other fairly sensible things you wrote.

 

[Trevrev]

e.g., a pedestrian may quite legitimately elbow you in the face if they claim that it was to prevent you running them over,

LOL........Great...They'd get one back !!!

Sorry......That was so aggressive of me......This just gets better !!!