One for the London lot...

[MartinC]

...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.

I can empathise with this point of view. But I also think that recognition is important and things register more quickly and correctly if the brain can identify them. So on balance it's probably better if drivers can recognise what you are - might be a challenge for them to recognise a 'bent though!

 

[very-near]

Spot on, and that's the issue. People get annoyed by it, and then make up all kinds of exaggerated arguments against it (see above).

This is from todays local paper in Chelt - Caused by a pavement cyclist - http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...or-attack/article-1591291-detail/article.html

I could dig up many many instances where a cycle is used as a fast getaway vehicle to attack people going about their own business. If the laws on pavement cycling was enforced rigidly, then it would hinder the ability of scum like this to do what he did, and it would also stop people from associating cycling with this sort of behaviour.

 

[Bman]

The challenge is getting mororists to treat us with respect after they indentify us as a cyclist.

 

[shunter]

The challenge is getting mororists to treat us with respect after they indentify us as a cyclist.

...... equal respect. If a car driver messes about with a motorcyclist or tries to play funny buggers he soon finds out he has an angry motorcyclist in his face . He can't get away from him or lose him in the traffic. Do it with another car driver and he has a chance to lose him in heavy traffic. But, do it on a cyclist - he gets away with it 98% of the time unless it is really heavy traffic and tail to tail for quite a distance.

He sees a cyclist - passes too close - no consequences. Does he care?

 

[mangaman]

This is from todays local paper in Chelt - Caused by a pavement cyclist - http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...or-attack/article-1591291-detail/article.html

I could dig up many many instances where a cycle is used as a fast getaway vehicle to attack people going about their own business. If the laws on pavement cycling was enforced rigidly, then it would hinder the ability of scum like this to do what he did, and it would also stop people from associating cycling with this sort of behaviour.

I don't agree with pavement cycling and don't do it, but this article is entirely irrelevant

It's about someone mugging someone while on a bike. It doesn't even say he was riding on the pavement - he is just as likely to have ridden up to her on the road and snatched her bag. He then ran away according to the article.

I could dig up more examples of cars being used as getaway vehicles than bicycles I can guarantee it - do you think we should ban all cars from the roads - of course not

 

[Cab]

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.

I realise that is the point you're making. Regrettably (from the perspective of justifying that position) the available data for accidents does not support your view, or the view of those who feel they're not okay to walk safely on the pavements. Pavement cycling is irritating, but dangerous? Show me the stats.

 

[very-near]

I don't agree with pavement cycling and don't do it, but this article is entirely irrelevant

It's about someone mugging someone while on a bike. It doesn't even say he was riding on the pavement - he is just as likely to have ridden up to her on the road and snatched her bag. He then ran away according to the article.

I could dig up more examples of cars being used as getaway vehicles than bicycles I can guarantee it - do you think we should ban all cars from the roads - of course not

What this article does is make people in my town wary of people on cycles in close proximity to them. As people generally don't walk on the roads as a mater of course, they will view any cyclist approaching on the pavement in their space with suspicion.

If I'm walking doen the road and am behind a woman walking on her own, I will cross to the other side if possible to avoid her feeling uncomfortable with a bloke on the pavement behind her. I don't see the reasoning in this as being any different as not pavement cycling to show consideration to the vulnerble and elderly in our society legally using these spaces.

 

[Cab]

What this article does is make people in my town wary of people on cycles in close proximity to them. As people generally don't walk on the roads as a mater of course, they will view any cyclist approaching on the pavement in their space with suspicion.

If I'm walking doen the road and am behind a woman walking on her own, I will cross to the other side if possible to avoid her feeling uncomfortable with a bloke on the pavement behind her. I don't see the reasoning in this as being any different as not pavement cycling to show consideration to the vulnerble and elderly in our society legally using these spaces.

You're arguing why we shouldn't ride on the pavement, which would be relevant if anyone was arguing that riding on the pavement is good. As no one is doing that, however, its clear you're missing the point of the arguments put to you.

It is irritating that people ride on the pavement. It is not very dangerous. That there are some who mistakenly view it as far more dangerous than it is does not change that fact.

 

[very-near]

You're arguing why we shouldn't ride on the pavement, which would be relevant if anyone was arguing that riding on the pavement is good. As no one is doing that, however, its clear you're missing the point of the arguments put to you.

It is irritating that people ride on the pavement. It is not very dangerous. That there are some who mistakenly view it as far more dangerous than it is does not change that fact.

MrP is a self confessed (and unrepentant) pavement cyclist. This is why he is arguing his corner..

 

[very-near]

OK, you're on to posting irrelevance now (let's ban cars shall we, so bank robbers can't get away? [oops, someone else has already posted the blindingly obvious] ) (or some oldie complaining about lycra louts on pavements -have you ever seen a roadie on the pavement, and youir link goes on to prove what I'm saying which is that peds moan about cyclists primarily because they don't think they should be there), so let's drag it back to a bit of credibility and look at it from another angle-


Given your statements, would you advocate the removal of the right to cycle in pedestrian areas where it is currently allowed?

I would like to see corridors painted through these areas with proper enforcement - otherwise get off and push.

Would you also advocate removal of all shared use pathways, and strict separation?

See above

 

[tdr1nka]

I guess the problem is that there is a variety of 'Pavement Cyclist' out there.
In some cases it is safer for a less bold or experienced cyclist to ride on pavement to avoid a busy junction, roundabout or some such. But on the other hand there is the POB with a can of cider bombing along the pavement expecting everyone to get out of their way.
(Please excuse the lurid generalisation but these are the two predominant types in my area.)

It's a fine line between what is safe and what isn't, in one sense a cyclist riding slowly and with consideration is actually taking up less space than if they were pushing their bike but an agressive cyclist with no care for others is a menace and possible danger.

The rule is there to avoid all eventualities and the problems arise when individual cyclists decide what rules apply to them and not to others, which is something we tend to bemoan in other road users.

 

[Matthames]

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.

Trust me you can

There are usually three senses that are in play to keep you balanced, that is eye sight, your inner ear and muscle. On a bike the muscle balance is replaced by touch and sub consciously knowing where you are on a bike. A bike moving at speed is a lot more stable than a bike moving at a walking pace. If one of those senses have been compromised your brain will compensate for it by using the rest.

Your brain will also look for a horizon in your peripheral vision. It is not something that needs to be seen in detail.

In case you are wondering, I don't have much in the way of internal sense of balance either.

 

[BentMikey]

It seems to me there are two issues - one is the balance issue, and the other is riding in traffic without hearing. It's not good to confound the two. Looking behind is required even on pavements - what about cars approaching from behind and about to turn across the pavement (we'll assume a shared path to keep it legal) into a driveway or road? I also wouldn't want to make the assumption that riding on the pavement is automatically safer than riding in the road.

If there are serious balance issues, then a recumbent trike might be a good option.

 

[very-near]

Trust me you can

There are usually three senses that are in play to keep you balanced, that is eye sight, your inner ear and muscle. On a bike the muscle balance is replaced by touch and sub consciously knowing where you are on a bike. A bike moving at speed is a lot more stable than a bike moving at a walking pace. If one of those senses have been compromised your brain will compensate for it by using the rest.

Your brain will also look for a horizon in your peripheral vision. It is not something that needs to be seen in detail.

In case you are wondering, I don't have much in the way of internal sense of balance either.

What keeps you upright at speed has nothing to do with 'muscle balance' and plenty to do with gyroscopic forces caused by spinning wheels - else we would be required to track stand all the time to stay on the bike!

 

[BentMikey]

You have no idea Linf.