Guardian Bike Blog: pavement cycling

[downfader]

They should have known the comments would end up like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/cyclists-pavement-fine

Theres some REAL oddbods posting on there.

 

[Tommi]

The comments there made me realise there should definitely be a cycling discussion drinking game. Or two, one for pedestrian/cyclist/motorist discussions and the other for cycling campaigning / infrastructure discussions.

 

[Svendo]

The comments there made me realise there should definitely be a cycling discussion drinking game. Or two, one for pedestrian/cyclist/motorist discussions and the other for cycling campaigning / infrastructure discussions.

Great idea! Can we have rules covering Campy/Shimano/Sram and Helmets too????

 

[downfader]

I prefer the Jaffa cake game.

Everytime someone mentions one of the following you have to scoff a jaffacake:

- licence
- helmet
- rego
- pavement cyclists
- highway code (in a negative context)
- etc....

I ate 36 in 10 minutes.

 

[slowmotion]

http://www.guardian....s-pavement-fine

He should have got off and walked for a hundred yards instead if making pathetic excuses about the road layout and whining. He broke the law and got caught, that's all.

 

[Dan B]

And the difference in practical terms between walking and walking-pace-cycling is what exactly?


"I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so." - Home Office guidance

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

And the difference in practical terms between walking and walking-pace-cycling is what exactly?

Well, one is against the law and the other isn't.

I do myself cycle very slowly across a section of pavement that is about as wide as it is long, to skip past a short section of one-way street. I'm doing no harm to anyone, but I do realize that I am breaking the law and could be prosecuted, although that's very unlikely! The law may be an ass, but it is still the law!

 

[Dan B]

The law may be an ass, but it is still the law!

Which is why I said "in practical terms". If considerate pavement cycling is illegal not because it harms anyone but simply because legalising it would encourage inconsiderate pavement cycling, then I have no problem at all with articles like this that point out the difference. Perhaps the resulting discussion will encourage someone to modify the law in some way that makes pavement cycling legal at this point or even to remove the need for it (shared-use path, cut-through, contraflow bike lane, or even returning the junction to two-way working) and we'll all be better off. I'd scarcely describe it as "whining"

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Which is why I said "in practical terms".

Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that.

If considerate pavement cycling is illegal not because it harms anyone but simply because legalising it would encourage inconsiderate pavement cycling, then I have no problem at all with articles like this that point out the difference. Perhaps the resulting discussion will encourage someone to modify the law in some way that makes pavement cycling legal at this point or even to remove the need for it (shared-use path, cut-through, contraflow bike lane, or even returning the junction to two-way working) and we'll all be better off. I'd scarcely describe it as "whining"

Yes, I do agree with this.

Unfortunately, the comments on the article suggest that such discussion around a newspaper article isn't generally productive. I was surprised to see that the comments on the Guardian site looked very much like the kind of comments you get on the Daily Mail site.

 

[Anglian]

And the difference in practical terms between walking and walking-pace-cycling is what exactly?

In practical terms, pedestrians move with little "rolling momentum", and are able to stop almost immediately, compared with even a slow-moving bicycle. They have no lateral stability problem when moving slowly or stopped. They can move to the side without having to move forwards at the same time. In essence, they are far more manoeuvrable than cyclists are.

Furthermore, walking does not encourage fast cyclists to ride on the pavement, nor does it make pavement cycling more acceptable, whereas riding a bike slowly along the pavement does both of these.

--

 

[summerdays]

In practical terms, pedestrians move with little "rolling momentum", and are able to stop almost immediately, compared with even a slow-moving bicycle. They have no lateral stability problem when moving slowly or stopped. They can move to the side without having to move forwards at the same time. In essence, they are far more manoeuvrable than cyclists are.

Furthermore, walking does not encourage fast cyclists to ride on the pavement, nor does it make pavement cycling more acceptable, whereas riding a bike slowly along the pavement does both of these.

--

I'm generally more stable and can stop easier when I'm on my bike than walking with it ... because I often have one fairly full pannier making me more unstable off the bike. At the speed I would be going if there are lots of pedestrians I could stop on a 50p if I wanted to. If I'm walking with the bike I have the same problems moving sideways as I would on the bike as well. The biggest problem with a bike for me in a area with pedestrians is generally when people walk into the bike because they changed direction without looking - they can manage to do that even if I'm standing still with the bike.

 

[Mad at urage]

In practical terms, pedestrians move with little "rolling momentum", and are able to stop almost immediately, compared with even a slow-moving bicycle.

Untrue. Whilst cycling at walking pace I can stop at least as quickly as I can when walking (there are these things called 'brakes' see...)

They have no lateral stability problem when moving slowly or stopped.

Untrue. I suggest you do a little research on how humans walk. The process is actually a controlled 'fall' which is (usually) learned around the age of 18 months to three years old. It takes quite a while to learn it even at that young age and much longer to relearn if that becomes necessary later in life. Even standing still, humans require constant adjustment of their balance, because standing on two legs is not a naturally stable position.

They can move to the side without having to move forwards at the same time. In essence, they are far more maneuverable than cyclists are.

Partially true but irrelevant. The alternative to slow cycling is not slow walking, but slow wheeling of a bicycle. A bicycle being wheeled cannot be moved sideways either, but then nor can a pram or a pushchair or many trollies and other such normal accompaniments to pedestrians. For that matter many people actually lack the motor skills to sidestep or traverse laterally (which is why so much time has to be spent teaching this in MA classes for example).

Furthermore, walking does not encourage fast cyclists to ride on the pavement, nor does it make pavement cycling more acceptable, whereas riding a bike slowly along the pavement does both of these.

--

Any evidence that slow cycle riding on pavements encourages fast cycle riding on pavements? Or is that opinion I've spotted there?

 

[dellzeqq]

He should have got off and walked for a hundred yards instead if making pathetic excuses about the road layout and whining. He broke the law and got caught, that's all.

can't help but agree....

the Home Office takes the view the people who are reasonably concerned about riding on the road and take to the pavement because they are concerned should not be prosecuted or fined. This chap was trying to save himself some time - that's a different thing entirely

The practical thing, together with the safety thing are neither here nor there. It doesn't matter whether the cyclist cycles in an inconsiderate way or not - it matters that the pedestrians might take exception to the cyclist, however considerately he or she might be cycling. There is a presumption against cycling on the pavement, which is only set aside if the cyclist is reasonably etc....

 

[mknash]

I avoid the footpaths for the simple reason that if I aint doing it, then I cant get blamed for it. i like to think that every now and then a ped/driver sees a cyclist stopping at lights or dismounting and pushing his bike on the pavement and generally following accepted rules and thinks "wow, not ALL cyclists are knobs", just the same way I feel when driver doesnt edge slowly into the ASL or holds back rather than side swiping me on a left turn.

 

[StuartG]

The law may be an ass, but it is still the law!

Except the law is not an end in itself. It is there to stop the behaviour the law was designed to stop. In this case endangering pedestrians. When that behaviour is absent then the law should be blind. That's essentially what the Home Office guidance says. Its a bit of comment on the lack of sensibility and discretion in law enforcement that such a document need be written.

I've used a handheld mobile at 70mph on a motorway (to call 999 about an accident occurring), I've driven my car along a pavement (to get someone to hospital in rush hour) and deliberately driven through a red light (to let a fire engine through). All strictly illegal. All perfectly acceptable - well I hope so. Doing harm is the crime, the law is there to help to admonish. You can't make laws that catch all bad people and spare all the good. Which is why you need a dose of discretion in a civilised state. And when it fails we call them jobsworths ...