Is a bicycle a "road vehicle"

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2020840, member: 45"]No, it doesn't. Shared use is growing all the time, and pavement that is not designated is ok to cycle on if you're not causing any bother (according to HM Gov.).

A bike isn't just for the road, and accepting this doesn't mean that we give up our road rights. Idiot drivers complain whatever cyclists do.[/quote]

Would you be happy to see horses on the pavements as well ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2021482, member: 45"]I'll reply to a question relevant to the thread. All other diversionary interests will be ignored.

Unless you're offering me a donkey ride.[/quote]

Well it is relevant really as Horses are not allowed on the pavements. Now if you were saying that the status of pavements should be changed to alllow both horses and cyclists on them, then, I'd also disagree.

Are you looking for the pavements as a place for vulnerable road users to ride on as Horses need to be included or just a highway where you become the dominant user given the mass/speed etc which you bring as a cyclist ?

I actually found that using the pavement with the horses on a busy road increases the danger to them as the traffic don't give them consideration, and actually bother to slow down as they pass as they aren't sharing the space.

 

[Linford]

There are over a million Horses in the UK. All have a legal right to use the roads to go from A to B
Not so many Elephants and Airships just don't bother with roads

 

[theclaud]

Yeh but this thread forum is about bikes?

FTFL

 

[Linford]

Go and pester someone about it on a horse forum if it bothers you. Or are you actually offering Mr P a donkey ride after all? He is, of course, not saying that at all. For anyone new to Linford's trolling tactics I'll point out that it's almost unheard of that someone is saying what he claims they are saying.

Horses and cyclists are both vulnerable users on the roads. Neither are legally allowed on footpaths, but there are plenty of bridleays they share where motor vehicles aren't allowed.

MrP is more than able to present is case without you sticking your claws in Claudine. You don't want to argue the point, you just want to argue....

 

[Linford]

Yeh but this thread is about bikes?

This threasd is about non motorised road users wanting to claim the space reserved for non road users as their legal right. I think it should encompass the two modes as they are given their own ROWs away from the roads.

Argue for access for one, then why not argue for access for both ? - Otherwise it appears a selfish demand.

 

[beanzontoast]

If they banned the sale of cheap MTB's, and doubled the sale of roadies, you would virtually eliminate cycling on the pavement as they wouldn't want to bump up and down the kerbs and risk wheel damage.

Creating shared spaces by taking part of a pavement from pedestrians and putting up a cyclist sign just makes drivers think cyclists have no lawful place on the road which runs adjacent to it.

Cyclists get hate from pedestrians for cycling in their space, and hate from drivers who think that they should have exclusive use of the roads, and cyclists should just get out of their way.

This is the best post I've read on the subject in a long time.

 

[byegad]

I avoid cycle paths as they are almost universally useless and dangerous to boot. However I had a course of treatment at a local cottage hospital that entailed riding down a steep hill which has three lanes ;eft right and middle, also known as a suicide lane for overtaking motorists. It has a 60mph limit which is largely ignored by drivers. Going to the appointments I rode on the road, often topping 30mph and certainly feeling safe. Going home up the hill the first time I crawled up with lunatic drivers passing me and each other in the face of oncoming traffic. So the next time I used to footpath.As I was climbing well into single figure mph dodging the occasional pedestrian, and/or giving way to them was easy and nobody seemed unhappy with me, even though I ride a recumbent trike, which is fairly wide!

IIRC there is advice to Police to take the road circumstances into consideration with this kind of pavement cycling. Anyway had I been stopped I'd have videoed the traffic at the time and used that in court as a defence. I was occasionally passed by Police cars, but none of them stopped.

 

[theclaud]

This threasd is about non motorised road users wanting to claim the space reserved for non road users as their legal right. I think it should encompass the two modes as they are given their own ROWs away from the roads.

Argue for access for one, then why not argue for access for both ? - Otherwise it appears a selfish demand.

Pedestrians are not "non road users".

 

[theclaud]

This is the best post I've read on the subject in a long time.

I respectfully suggest you need get out more...

 

[Linford]

I say cycles should be on the road along with Horses, and not on the pavements. It just makes you appear selfish if you argue for one without the other. Both are vulnerable, but both require respect from the other traffic. Turning them into 'non' road users opens the doors for valid demand they have no right to be there.

 

[Linford]

1) The pavement is part of the road.

2) That aside I agree. No pavement cycling and no parallel cycle paths, they both increase the perception of not belonging on the road, which as we all know is where bike belong not the back of the garage covered in excuses.

Adrian - The Pavement is part of the Highway reserved for pedestrians, not cyclists, not horses, cattl, sheep, or Donkey's

Are we arguing for all pavements to be converted to shared spaces for vulnerable road users ?

 

[Davidc]

If you really want to know then look up the Vienna Convention on Road Transport (the UK is a signatory) and the laws listed at the end of the Highway Code.

Between them they cover almost everything.

The insurance thing is easily countered - the majority of cyclists have 3rd party insurance, mostly through household policies. Many cars are uninsured. I've heard the silly remark made and if I reply I say that perhaps we need to look at compulsory bike insurance once the uninsured cars problem is solved.

 

[Linford]

If you really want to know then look up the Vienna Convention on Road Transport (the UK is a signatory) and the laws listed at the end of the Highway Code.

Between them they cover almost everything.

The insurance thing is easily countered - the majority of cyclists have 3rd party insurance, mostly through household policies. Many cars are uninsured. I've heard the silly remark made and if I reply I say that perhaps we need to look at compulsory bike insurance once the uninsured cars problem is solved.

Not quite correct on the cars, and all victims of uninsured drivers have an entitlement to make a claim through the Motorists Insurance Bureaux - which all motorists driving legally are obliged to pay into through their premiums.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2021638, member: 45"]I have, many times. It has never involved, neither does it ever need to involve, discussing horses.[/quote]

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on pavement cycling MrP