One for the London lot...

[StuartG]

Pavement riding might be a problem in Westminster. Not here. Too many dammed cars parked on the pavements blocking riders, pushchairs, runners ...

Can we get a bit of perspective please. Do people for being anti-social not just for breaking a law. A fast bike and an old lady should be kept apart and no one has a problem with that. Do 'em. A slow bike ridden by someone who feels unsafe on the road which does not interfere with pedestrians is a problem to whom?

The police are not perfect in using their discretion. However penalty revenue chasing council officers and contractors have a rather inferior track record. At least in Lambeth!

 

[very-near]

Pavement riding might be a problem in Westminster. Not here. Too many dammed cars parked on the pavements blocking riders, pushchairs, runners ...

Can we get a bit of perspective please. Do people for being anti-social not just for breaking a law. A fast bike and an old lady should be kept apart and no one has a problem with that. Do 'em. A slow bike ridden by someone who feels unsafe on the road which does not interfere with pedestrians is a problem to whom?

The police are not perfect in using their discretion. However penalty revenue chasing council officers and contractors have a rather inferior track record. At least in Lambeth!

When I am pushing a pushchair along the pavement, and I see a car parked on it, It is fairly annoying if the gap is so narrow I can't get the pushchair past it, but there is no risk it will harm me or the occupant ofthe pushchair. If I am pushing a pushchair along the pavement and I se a cyclist on the pavement, it is fairly annoying that they are there because they present a real risk of running into me or the pushchair - especially if their skills are wanting. There isn't really any justification for any adult to be doing this and just shows a selfish attitude to those around them.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

That's true up to a point Linf - and I share your sentiments regarding pavement cyclists - but it's worth remembering that for a car to park on the pavement it has to drive there. Having nearly been squashed by a small van doing just this once (I stepped out of a chip shop door right into his path) I have little sympathy for pavement parkers either. Apart from anything else, how come it's ok to block the pavement but not the road?

 

[BentMikey]

Ah, so you're telling us any lights on the road can be "misinterpreted" and that only cyclists need to spend more effort in making it obvious that they are cyclists and on the road. Maybe it's not just FUD you're spreading, but also a significant amount of victim blaming.

It's not hard to see lights, and it's not hard to interpret them correctly either. Anything else is lack of due care in driving.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Ah, so you're telling us any lights on the road can be "misinterpreted" and that only cyclists need to spend more effort in making it obvious that they are cyclists and on the road. Maybe it's not just FUD you're spreading, but also a significant amount of victim blaming.

It's not hard to see lights, and it's not hard to interpret them correctly either. Anything else is lack of due care in driving.

BM, if you're determined to continually misrepresent my posts in such a way, there's really not much I can do. I have no idea why you feel the need to be so confrontational with me, but I have better things to do than argue with someone wearing blinkers. Where have I suggested that anyone is a victim of anything, never mind that it was their fault? And "fear"? Are you actively afraid of being more visible on the road? Why is suggesting that any more vulnerable road user makes themselves easier to see a bad thing?
When you have as much experience of driving all shapes and sizes of vehicles as I have, then perhaps you can start telling me what is and isn't hard to interpret from behind the wheel. Until then, you could try listening for a change; you might learn something.

 

[Norm]

When I am pushing a pushchair along the pavement, and I see a car parked on it, It is fairly annoying if the gap is so narrow I can't get the pushchair past it, but there is no risk it will harm me or the occupant of the pushchair.

I agree with your point but I think this is not a good example.

Maybe the car itself won't cause harm but, if it is blocking the pavement, you will need to go into the road to go round it, which would be much greater risk than staying on the pavement.

If you had said that the car was on the pavement but not blocking it, I think that would have worked.

 

[Tynan]

some on here are so anti hi viz any argument will do

I seem to recall that thise using it are making it more dangerous for those that don't

 

[StuartG]

The point I was trying to make is that any wheeled vehicle that impedes a pedestrian on a pavement should be subject to stricture. Whether it is a bike or a parked car is secondary. What is more important is the consequence.

A mother having to wheel her baby into a busy road to get round the obstacle is put severely at risk and the offence should get a requisite penalty. The same as a speedy cyclist making contact with a pedestrian. However where there is no conflict the law should take a Nelsonian view. When it is just a nuisance but no danger than a warning. Of course ignored warnings should have consequences.

Am I being too lenient, too strict or what?

 

[very-near]

The only issue is a legal one. As it is with pavement parkers. Who are a nightmare for those less able.

And sorry to correct you, but if a pavement parker forces any type of pedestrian into the road then he's inarguably putting them at considerable risk than an irritating pedestrian/cyclist/pushchair-pusher on the pavement.

If anyone is in charge of an occupied push chair, then I sincerely hope that they have enough wherewithal to be able to tell as-and-when it is safe to step into the road, be it to negotiate a narrowing of it, narrowing of it deliberately by an inconsiderately (illegally) parked car, it has come to an end, or they need to step into the road to cross to the other side.

If any of the above examples are still the case, the decision of what is a safe or unsafe manouver still lies with the person in charge of the pushchair and they can pick and choose their moment.

When an inconsiderate pavement cyclist come through, they invariably do it with considerably more speed/energy than someone on foot wheeling a pushchair, and this judgment call is taken from the pushchair user and made by the pavement cyclist.

You might find pedestrians and pushchair users irritating when you are using the pavement, but stop for a minute and consider that they have a legal right to be there and you as a cyclist do not!

 

[dellzeqq]

in addition to inconveniencing and occasionally endangering pedestrians, children in pushchairs and people in wheelchairs, pavement parking cracks paving stones - which costs those of us paying council tax a pretty penny. But...do not pavement park in Westminster. No, sirree, no way. Their pavement parking SWAT team will descend on your car and take it to the pound.

 

[very-near]

The point I was trying to make is that any wheeled vehicle that impedes a pedestrian on a pavement should be subject to stricture. Whether it is a bike or a parked car is secondary. What is more important is the consequence.

A mother having to wheel her baby into a busy road to get round the obstacle is put severely at risk and the offence should get a requisite penalty. The same as a speedy cyclist making contact with a pedestrian. However where there is no conflict the law should take a Nelsonian view. When it is just a nuisance but no danger than a warning. Of course ignored warnings should have consequences.

Am I being too lenient, too strict or what?

Whilst all pavement parking is illegal, it doesn't necessarily follow that putting the wheels on the edge of the pavement automatically causes pedestrians a problem, but when you cycle on the pavement amongst pedestrians, unless you are doing so past them at waking pace(in which case you might as well get off and walk), you will cause them to either consider your presence and take evasive action, or you will make a relaxing walk into one which they need to be always on their guard, and that is really just being a bit selfish.

That said, there is a road on my way into town which always has cars parked on the pavement on one side, and there is no way you can get a pushchair along side them let alone cycle on the pavement, and I do find this act at this point to be inconsiderate to say the least.

 

[Matthames]

Another point, pavement cyclists are extremely dangerous to people who have sensory disabilities. I fit in to the category of having a sensory disability and can tell you I cannot hear a cyclist behind me even if they shout or ring a bell, in fact I nearly had a few pavement cyclists off because I didn't know they were there. If you choose to ride on the pavement and are blocked by a pedestrian, you may like to consider that there is a possibility that the pedestrian might be deaf and will be completely unaware of your presence.

The parked cars on pavements forcing pedestrians into the road is a particular nuisance to people who are blind or partially sighted, especially those who use a cane to get around.

 

[tdr1nka]

Whenever I meet a pavement cyclist and I'm on foot, I stop dead in their tracks so they have to stop too.

The other thing about pavement parking is that wheelchairs, which are usually wider than most pushchairs, can't get past either and not all chairs are able to decend and mount curbs in order to get round such an obsticle.

Cars that are parked too close to a junction blocking lowered curbs are more prevelant.

 

[StuartG]

Another point, pavement cyclists are extremely dangerous to people who have sensory disabilities.

And cycling on the road can be very dangerous for people who have sensory disabilities. My daughter is deaf so cannot hear vehicles approaching from the rear. I prefer her to ride on the pavement when it doesn't impact pedestrians.

Or perhaps she shouldn't ride at all, but that would be a shame. She is allowed to drive a car on the road and doing so she would, of course, be a greater danger to pedestrians than cycling on the pavement ...

 

[Cab]

Why do cars not have hiviz jackets, and why can we all interpret car and motorbike lights properly, and yet according to you, not cyclists?

I'm sorry, but you're talking up a storm of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).

Two lights in parallel are easier to interpret than a single light. As you approach the distance between them changes, and of course as they move relative to each other you can distinguish certain features about the road and the vehicle by their movements and your own relative to them. It seems quite reasonable to suggest that a bike with two lights on the back is more 'interpretable' than one with one.

Of course, knowing this (as Rythm Thief clearly does) is handy, its part of being forewarned about how best to utilise any road on which you may see cyclists (or motorbikes), i.e. any road at all.