Pavement cyclists.

[Rochenko]

Another anecdote and/or data point from over here in Cardiff. A couple of years ago, whilst cycling along the path alongside Ninian Road with my then 18-month old son in the child seat, I was stopped by a copper who asked me why I wasn't cycling on the road. I pointed out that the road (with two lines of parked cars and plenty of speeders) was obviously a more dangerous place to cycle than a wide path with hardly any pedestrians on it. He agreed, and let me continue.

BTW, that wasn't a straw man, Clandy. Mickle was pointing out that you had employed a fallacy of your own, i.e. an argument from authority.

 

[summerdays]

No, it is always inconsiderate because of the hazard of bicycles’ handlebars and general size and weight, and the relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians. This means pedestrians either have to keep out of your way or force you to go around them.

The hazard of the bicycles handlebars, weight and size is still there even if you are walking with your bike. In fact my bike is usually more unweildy when I'm not cycling it.

I have a narrow alleyway that provides a well used cut through that I use frequently as do many other cyclists and pedestrians. It is only 1 - 1.5 meters wide if that, and I have been known to ride down it - as I am usually through slightly quicker (5mph) than if I walk(3mph). If I meet someone it is a bit of a close pass but I actually take up more room off the bike standing beside it. That said I normally get off if I meet anyone in the alleyway or wait if I'm about to go down it and someone is coming the other way. Nobody seems to get upset with the cyclists using it as they are considerate when they meet anyone. At the other end of the alleyway its reversed as it turns into a lane with no pavement and the pedestrians wander all over the lane. Again I wait patiently behind the pedestrians and parents sometimes fuss to get their children out of the way ... but I just say it's fine ... I wait till I can safely pass and carry on my journey.

If a cyclist is older than 12 then they should not be on the pavement. They should grow a pair and learn to ride legally on the road.

Actually the law says all cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement so theoretically that includes 2 year olds too .... do you want them on the road? If you are under 16 you can normally get away with it since it is prosecuted by a FPN, although the police can stop you below 16 to say that you should be cycling more sensibly on the pavement.

As for my 13 yo I wouldn't let her cycle anywhere ... I don't even let her walk on her own if I can help it ... she has very poor road sense. Whereas my youngest child at 10 I would let cycle some routes. The age someone develops road sense varies it is difficult to slap an arbitrary age on it.

The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.

I would agree to that one - but only if the reverse was true and actually followed through ... the idea of those cars that are ridden up onto the pavement being crushed would give me a really large smile. Or even those who ignore advice in the highway code about parking over pedestrian crossing points or at/near junctions.

I've been cycling for under a week.

I bought my first bike (since I was a young lad anyway) on Thursday and since then have been out every day on it building my confidence up, getting my balance and so forth. I have ridden to and from work on Friday, Satuday and today. The route takes me through my council estate, onto a road, then to work.

When I ride, I mostly ride on the pavement. apart from one leg of my journey where I do go out onto the road for about 5-10 minutes,

As others have said - get some training ... I started like you on the pavement on all but the quietest of side roads and gradually built up my confidence and ability (and I still remember plucking up the courage to do my first multi-lane roundabout in the middle of town! I don't have a problem with considerate pavement cycling especially for those who are maybe not ready for the busier roads. (As well as training I recommend the book Cyclecraft).

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101553"]
I've just had a very helpful email back from West Midlands Police. I'll paste it up later, but basically it reflects the Home Office guidance of a reasonable approach.

Is that still anecdotal?
[/quote]

Here's a statement from the Pedestrians Association stating that contrary to your claims plenty of pedestrians do find pavement cycling a problem. Not because of some hypothetical tiny group of inconsiderate cyclists that give the good cyclists a bad name, just because of the physical problems of sharing the space with bikes when they aren't expected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm

Or are these the wrong sort of pedestrians?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101558"]
Read it again. Some find it a risk. Most of the peds the man referred to find it an 'irritation'. What does this mean?
[/quote]

wrong sort of pedestrians it is then!

It means your idea of what is an acceptable cost to impose on the people you share a space with is very different to mine.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101558"]
Read it again. Some find it a risk. Most of the peds the man referred to find it an 'irritation'. What does this mean?
[/quote]

I understand 'irritate' to mean someone doesn't like something. So it would appear, in that article, that the majority of pedestrians don't like cyclists on the pavement. I have to agree with them, when I am walking, it pisses me right off to see grown adults cycling on the pavement.

 

[Dan B]

If the purpose of the law is to prosecute activities on the basis that people find them merely irritating, I have a long list of stuff that needs looking at which starts with R&B music, the Northern Line, meaningless buzzphrases including but not limited to "at the end of the day", "going forward" and "in the real world", and anyone who thinks that a Sturmey Archer hubbed wheel can be fitted or removed just by putting an assortment of nuts on in whatever random configuration they happen to hand. I would welcome the introduction of fixed-penalty fines against any or all of the preceding

 

[brokenbetty]

If the purpose of the law is to prosecute activities on the basis that people find them merely irritating, I have a long list of stuff that needs looking at

As Paul pointed out, the point isn't legal=ok, illegal=not ok, the point is whether his assertion that all pedestrians are only bothered about a small subset of inconsiderate cyclists is valid.

The law is relevant here only in as much as pedestrians will expect bikes in shared areas but not on standard pavements (unless one's view is that peds should be expecting bikes at all times of course)

I'm not sure why he then sidetracked himself by what a policeman did or didn't say, as he now seems to be saying the legality does matter, but IMO it's a red herring for exact the reasons you give.

 

[Domeo]

[QUOTE 1101518"]
Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

[/quote]

What all of those who think that it is acceptable to ride on the pavement are missing is that there is a considerable proportion of motorists who already think that we have no place on the road. The more the cyclists are seen riding on pavements the more it reinforces both the extant negative view of cyclists and the already entrenched view that we should only be riding on the pavement and not on the road.

 

[biglad]

As others have said - get some training ... I started like you on the pavement on all but the quietest of side roads and gradually built up my confidence and ability (and I still remember plucking up the courage to do my first multi-lane roundabout in the middle of town! I don't have a problem with considerate pavement cycling especially for those who are maybe not ready for the busier roads. (As well as training I recommend the book Cyclecraft).

Thanks Summerdays. once I get home I will have a look into getting a copy. I managed a longer ride today which included a mega busy Liverpool city centre road, I left my terror at home and got stuck in, and navigated the route with relative ease and only a minimum of soiled trousers! hah

 

[Dan B]

As Paul pointed out, the point isn't legal=ok, illegal=not ok

Well, I confess I haven't been monitoring the thread that closely in the last few pages, but that was definitely the point being made by many of the previous posters further up. I am really quite cheered to hear that we've moved on to consider a more nuanced view that takes account of circumstances.

the point is whether his assertion that all pedestrians are only bothered about a small subset of inconsiderate cyclists is valid.

I don't know if it's a small subset or a large subset or a massive majority, so offer no opinion on that point. However, I would suggest that most pedestrians do not notice or remember considerate pavement cyclists at all, either because the cyclists are on deserted pavements and there are no pedestrians anyway, or because a "considerate" cyclist, by definition, is one who gives pedestrians (including the potentially blind/disabled/elderly and the children) no reasonable cause to be bothered. Instead they notice the inconsiderate cyclists, because those are the ones who injure or intimidate or worry them and cause them to have to take action. It's quite straightforward selection bias

 

[brokenbetty]

I don't know if it's a small subset or a large subset or a massive majority, so offer no opinion on that point. However, I would suggest that most pedestrians do not notice or remember considerate pavement cyclists at all, either because the cyclists are on deserted pavements and there are no pedestrians anyway, or because a "considerate" cyclist, by definition, is one who gives pedestrians (including the potentially blind/disabled/elderly and the children) no reasonable cause to be bothered

And that's where we differ, for several reasons.

Firstly, people's standards are different. What an individual thinks is being considerate isn't always perceived that way by the object of their consideration. There are hundreds of examples on this site alone of people who claim a ped cyclist or driver was out of order only to have the majority of respondents respond that they were in the wrong.

Secondly, what might not be a problem when a few people do it becomes one when many do. If we are serious about increasing cycle use we can't use the pavements as a training ground, there just isn't room. Putting more bikes on pavements means the pavements speed up. Putting more bikes on roads means the roads slow down. I know which I prefer

Thirdly, all the consideration in the world doesn't change the fact that when someone makes a mistake, being hit by a bike hurts a lot more than being hit by a shoulder. For goodness sake, the minimum safe overtaking space we expect from cars is as wide as some pavements!

Frankly, I think peds should be able to walk down the pavement texting and wearing an iPod and sidestep a dog turd without having to check behind them first in case a "considerate" cyclist happens to be overtaking. The pavement should be a place to be a human, not a meerkat.

 

[brokenbetty]

The majority of pedestrians who write to the Pedestrian Association to complain that they're irritated by pavement cyclists don't like cyclists on the pavement? Right again.

No, the majority of pedestrians who write to the Pedestrian Association to complain about anything complain about pavement cycling. As you say, read my link

That's two of you now who have admitted that it's not about risk but just about irritation. Thankfully the Home Office and the police take a rather less antisocial and a more reasoned and tolerant approach.

Strawman. I've never said risk, It's you who thinks unless there is an immediate risk of injury the problem doesn't exist. Just like your scientific survey of pedestrians' feeling about pavement cycling was based on "I didn't see anyone flinch", you see what you want to see and dismiss everyone else as wrong sort of cyclist or wrong sort of ped.

Incidentally, the best thing about this thread is timing your commute every evening by the gaps in your posts

Antisocial behaviour to me is degrading our shared environment and making people feel ill at ease is exactly that

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101568"]
That's two of you now who have admitted that it's not about risk but just about irritation. Thankfully the Home Office and the police take a rather less antisocial and a more reasoned and tolerant approach.
[/quote]

Don't put words in my mouth. I do think it is about risk I just omitted to say so. I'll go further and say this, whenever I am walking and I see an adult riding ILLEGALLY on the pavement I will deliberately obstruct them and tell them to get in the road.
As I said previously, learn to ride on the road, and stop trying to justify breaking the law.

 

[Dan B]

And that's where we differ, for several reasons.

Firstly, people's standards are different. What an individual thinks is being considerate isn't always perceived that way by the object of their consideration. There are hundreds of examples on this site alone of people who claim a ped cyclist or driver was out of order only to have the majority of respondents respond that they were in the wrong.

Secondly, what might not be a problem when a few people do it becomes one when many do. If we are serious about increasing cycle use we can't use the pavements as a training ground, there just isn't room. Putting more bikes on pavements means the pavements speed up. Putting more bikes on roads means the roads slow down. I know which I prefer

Thirdly, all the consideration in the world doesn't change the fact that when someone makes a mistake, being hit by a bike hurts a lot more than being hit by a shoulder. For goodness sake, the minimum safe overtaking space we expect from cars is as wide as some pavements!

Frankly, I think peds should be able to walk down the pavement texting and wearing an iPod and sidestep a dog turd without having to check behind them first in case a "considerate" cyclist happens to be overtaking. The pavement should be a place to be a human, not a meerkat.

Well, clearly we must have different ideas of what "considerate" means, because in my book if you're moving fast enough and close enough to a pedestrian on the pavement that you hit them if you make a mistake or they change direction suddenly, you're not cycling considerately you're buzzing them. And if you're hitting them hard enough that it hurts more than being shoulder-checked, doubly so!


I would be entirely happy to support you in your calls for pedestrians to be able to step sideways without the need for rear-view mirrors. But I don't see that as necessarily incompatible with cycling just as it's not necessarily incompatible with jogging, or with rollerskating, or with use of a wheelchair.

On the "what if everyone did it" point, again I think that's a good point. But please understand I am not calling for an increase in pavement cyclists and I don't think such an increase is likely - with support and encouragement most of them will soon get the confidence to progress to carriageway cycling most of the time. But some of the invective displayed in this thread (not from you, I hasten to add) is about as far from "support" as Pluto from the sun.

 

[ManiaMuse]

Woop my thread still lives!