One for the London lot...

[Cab]

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 ...

Its certainly something that I think few people on the roads consider. Once in a while I see a blind bloke on my way to work, on the back of a tandem with a mate of his. I can't imagine how that feels for him, but every time I'm left with massive respect for both of them.

Hearing impediments aren't the same thing of course, but its obvious that there are considerations to be made here.

 

[very-near]

Sometimes you have no choice.

And walking in the road always carries more risk than walking on the pavement.

I am not defending inconsiderate parking, and certainly not when it obstructs the pavement. This doesn't get away from the point that those obstructed have the choice of how and when they deem safe to negotiate it. Pavement cyclists in my experience rarely have any patience and will and do charge past at a substantially higher rate of knots than those on foot. They add unneccessary risk to this part of the traffic network system and should not be doing it.

If you add the bold, then I agree with you entirely. Though the same can be said for inconsiderate pedestrians.

Given they have a legal right to be there, I don't think they are being unreasonable if they don't afford an illegal pavement cyclist any consideration. Pavement cycling by adult's is just a selfish act which has no legal or moral justification.


I didn't say I did. It's inconsderate people who are a pain.

I think we know that.

I think we both know deep down that your opinion on this issue has no legs. Pavement cycling is a danger on so many levels, and that is without even examining the elevated risk pedestrians fear from hoodlums who would (and do) use a cycle as a fast means of getaway if they choose to assault or rob as the act of pavement cycling afford them the ability to get up close and personal to their victims in the blink of an eye without them being aware there are even being followed.

Pavement cycling debases the enjoyable (IMO) and noble activity of cycling and just demonstrates the selfish nature of those who partake in it!

 

[Cab]

I think we both know deep down that your opinion on this issue has no legs. Pavement cycling is a danger on so many levels,

I keep coming back to the same thing when I see this argument; where are the stats to prove that? Pavement cycling is endemic, its not rare, yet the numerical evidence does not support the claim that it is very dangerous, merely that it is quite irritating.

 

[BentMikey]

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.

...and that's the nub of the problem - there are lots of vehicles of different widths, and different light spacings. You can't tell much about the vehicle from light spacing, number of lights, or even be sure it is a single vehicle.

What tells you this sort of information is observation of behaviour. Then it doesn't really matter whether the lights you see coming are a:
Motorcycle with one/two lights
Bicycle
Car with one/two working lights
Motorcycle overtaking car
Car overtaking car

etc. etc.
It's not that long ago that I had one oncoming car take a while to overtake another, and both were one-eyed monsters (i.e. only one working headlight). That one got a bit more attention than usual.

Ordinary road users can work all this stuff out simply by paying a little attention. My point is that it takes much less attention than is required by the highway code and driving test.

 

[very-near]

I keep coming back to the same thing when I see this argument; where are the stats to prove that? Pavement cycling is endemic, its not rare, yet the numerical evidence does not support the claim that it is very dangerous, merely that it is quite irritating.

It is more than irritating, though. It robs people of the right to feel that the pavements are a haven of safety from wheeled vehicles.

The Pedestrians' Association, says it gets more letters about pavement cyclists than on any other subject.
They say elderly people, in particular, feel intimidated by so-called "lycra louts" who ride along the pavement at high speed, often narrowly missing pedestrians and sometime causing injury.

Ben Plowden, a director of the Pedestrians' Association said: "For many pedestrians it is annoying and frustrating to find that space which they think belongs to pedestrians only - is being used by cyclists for whatever reason. "I think it is particularly problematic for anyone with a physical disability, someone who is partially sighted or blind or hard of hearing who can regard this as a serious menace."

I'm not talking about parents walkig alongside their kids whilst they learn the fundamentals of cycle control on the pavement though so don't feel I am being totally hard nosed about the issue.

 

[very-near]

...and that's the nub of the problem - there are lots of vehicles of different widths, and different light spacings. You can't tell much about the vehicle from light spacing, number of lights, or even be sure it is a single vehicle.

What tells you this sort of information is observation of behaviour. Then it doesn't really matter whether the lights you see coming are a:
Motorcycle with one/two lights
Bicycle
Car with one/two working lights
Motorcycle overtaking car
Car overtaking car

etc. etc.
It's not that long ago that I had one oncoming car take a while to overtake another, and both were one-eyed monsters (i.e. only one working headlight). That one got a bit more attention than usual.

Ordinary road users can work all this stuff out simply by paying a little attention. My point is that it takes much less attention than is required by the highway code and driving test.

My M/cycle is a bike with twin headlights which are on permanently when the engine is running, but euro legislation forced the manufacturers to turn one of them off on dip beam in case someone mistakes the bike for a car - Why should this make a difference is beyond me as the side lights still show the width of the bike All this means is that when I am riding against another car with its headlights on, I am able to differentiate less what is in the road in front of me due to the poorer lighting being offered by the single headlight.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

...and that's the nub of the problem - there are lots of vehicles of different widths, and different light spacings. You can't tell much about the vehicle from light spacing, number of lights, or even be sure it is a single vehicle.

What tells you this sort of information is observation of behaviour. Then it doesn't really matter whether the lights you see coming are a:
Motorcycle with one/two lights
Bicycle
Car with one/two working lights
Motorcycle overtaking car
Car overtaking car

etc. etc.
It's not that long ago that I had one oncoming car take a while to overtake another, and both were one-eyed monsters (i.e. only one working headlight). That one got a bit more attention than usual.

Ordinary road users can work all this stuff out simply by paying a little attention. My point is that it takes much less attention than is required by the highway code and driving test.

Interesting you should say that ...

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.

Regarding your "observation of behaviour" point, that's true enough. The point I was trying to make was that there isn't much practical difference between the bloke on a BSO wobbling around in the gutter 500 yards away with a single light on his handlebars and the pedestrian on the pavement two feet to his left, carrying a torch. Nor is there much practical difference between a car with one working headlight and a motorbike. Given that, I prefer there to be something - hi viz, flashing LEDs, pedal reflectors, whatever - which enables a driver to be able to think "cyclist" immediately.

 

[BentMikey]

...again, I really don't want drivers to be thinking cyclist about me. We've all seen the sort of driving that results in. I just want them to think vehicle on the road.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

My M/cycle is a bike with twin headlights which are on permanently when the engine is running, but euro legislation forced the manufacturers to turn one of them off on dip beam in case someone mistakes the bike for a car - Why should this make a difference is beyond me as the side lights still show the width of the bike ]

You're rather relying on people seeing the sidelights ... easy when you know they're there, but you know how people's minds work - if they think they've identified your motorbike as a car a long way off, they won't be looking for additional information such as sidelights.

 

[Matthames]

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 ...

To be honest cycling on the road when you can't hear vehicles behind you is no more dangerous than if you can. Rear collisions are very rare, it is mostly SMIDSYs and Left hooks that are going to get you.

Being deaf myself, I cannot hear vehicles coming up behind me, but I still ride on the road. If you regularly look behind you do not need to be able to hear what is coming from behind. In fact installing a mirror can help a great deal.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

...again, I really don't want drivers to be thinking cyclist about me. We've all seen the sort of driving that results in. I just want them to think vehicle on the road.

Well, that's fair enough, I suppose, although it's completely at odds with my own experience.

 

[Dan B]

I'd quite like drivers behind to have some reasonable clue that I'm a cyclist (so possibly slower and closer than they expect), but I don't see any need to give drivers ahead of me the same information.

 

[very-near]

To be honest cycling on the road when you can't hear vehicles behind you is no more dangerous than if you can. Rear collisions are very rare, it is mostly SMIDSYs and Left hooks that are going to get you.

Being deaf myself, I cannot hear vehicles coming up behind me, but I still ride on the road. If you regularly look behind you do not need to be able to hear what is coming from behind. In fact installing a mirror can help a great deal.

This is fair enough. Many cyclists ride with IPods so have very limited auditory accuity as well. Better to just be seen in good time as you can't imfluence how they drive towards you unless they se you in good time.

 

[very-near]

I'd quite like drivers behind to have some reasonable clue that I'm a cyclist (so possibly slower and closer than they expect), but I don't see any need to give drivers ahead of me the same information.

This works well until you ride with no reflective clothing and one of those silly green LED lamps and they turn across your path because they couldn't see you on a junction, or pull out on you from a side junction because you give them no real idea you are there.

 

[StuartG]

Being deaf myself, I cannot hear vehicles coming up behind me, but I still ride on the road. If you regularly look behind you do not need to be able to hear what is coming from behind. In fact installing a mirror can help a great deal.

Not if your cochlea has been compromised. You have no internal sense of balance and do it on eyesight. Turning round means you are likely to lose it. Mirrors are good but limited. I have one and have hearing.

Some people (young/inexperienced/disabled) are best on pavement if we are to have them on wheels at all. Riding on pavements with care does not have to be dangerous or confrontational. It should be treated with discretion as the those that do ride dangerously or just inconsiderately need to be targetted and discouraged or penalised for the benefit of cycling generally.