adds21
Rider of bikes
- Location
- North Somerset
Some of the above posts go to show that things aren't always black or white. They also show some people in this thread need a common sense implant.
Pavement cyclists.
- Thread starter ManiaMuse
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
biglad
New Member
- Location
- Liverpool, UK.
And that some are just downright aggressive.
Sh4rkyBloke
Jaffa Cake monster
- Location
- Manchester, UK
Yeah, course you do... as long as they're smaller than you, or more frail looking, or female etc. etc.
No-one (I don't think) is disputing that it is ILLEGAL... but none the less, there is a directive for Police use which allows it as long as it is done in a considerate manner and is not endangering pedestrians... whether you agree with the principle behind this is another matter though.
OldFashionedCyclist
New Member
I’ve written the following to try and explain why I think that all pavement riding is wrong. I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts. It could undoubtedly be improved, but I’m afraid I haven’t the time. And I apologise for its ridiculous length. My thanks to Brokenbetty, Clandy, Peter B (6/15/03 4:00 am on http://www.cyclingfo...avement-cycling) and a couple of others for useful contributory thinking.
I think the introduction of cyclists onto the pavement is changing the definition of what a pavement is. The pavement is currently a complicated social setting, with all kinds of rules about the consideration that pedestrians show each other. There's an unspoken, but quite sophisticated, contract between pedestrians that should guarantee equal dignity and equal safety to everyone. Of course, this doesn't always work properly, but it works pretty well.
As a result a pavement is somewhere where pedestrians can wander around. If we want to move sideways, in and out of shops, or to look in a shop window, or to talk to a friend, or to post a letter, or to cross the road, we can. A cursory glance is enough, because everyone else is moving at walking speed. If we do bump into someone, it will be a soft collision, the likelihood of injury very small and equally shared. A proper apology can be given and accepted, and no harm done, physical or psychological.
Bicycles change all this.
Firstly, they are heavy, obtrusive, awkwardly-shaped, metal objects, quite unlike people, and even at low speeds a collision with one can hurt. Any faster, it may knock you over. But it is less likely to hurt the cyclist, whose body is not being struck with anything and who has a metal frame to brace himself against. This changes the whole dynamic.
Secondly, at 10 mph (which is normal) it is very difficult to have any interaction with a cyclist, as you would with another pedestrian. So is there is not the same scope for "after you" or "thanks", or any of the myriad unspoken gestures and acknowledgments that make negotiating this common space mutually easier. This means that pedestrians become merely obstacles to be avoided, which is not how we see each other. This coarsens the human interaction taking place.
Thirdly, cyclists cannot step sideways. When there is a close call, we have to get out of their way.
Lastly, many cyclists have a combination of naivety and selfishness, and believe that "their skill" is such that they will always avoid an accident. But the unpredictable nature of the social space they are entering means that skill is not enough.
So the social rules that create equality and safety between pedestrians don't work between pedestrians and cyclists. The power dynamic is on the cyclists' side.
There are exceptions to the contract whereby pedestrians agree not to inconvenience or endanger each other. When a mother pushes her child in a buggy, we keep out of her way. Same for wheelchairs, motorised or otherwise, people carrying heavy luggage, small children riding bicycles, adults pushing bicycles etc. These people all have good reasons for making us walk round them, or for placing us at some small degree of risk. So we don't mind.
A cyclist breaks our contract when he comes onto the pavement because the size and awkwardness (wheels, handlebars) of his machine mean that he is a nuisance. So what he does is to dismount and turn himself into a pedestrian. He thereby becomes less of a nuisance and shows that he respects our space and our contract. In this way he becomes a valid exception. Not to dismount is therefore bad manners. And any adult who thinks that manners don’t matter is still a child.
If he is riding faster than walking speed, as they usually do, he is risking the safety of any pedestrian who doesn't see him in time and gets in his way. Remember, our rules say that we can pretty much wander about as we like. Simply by riding at this speed he is making a statement that he is prepared to risk startling, upsetting and bruising us. If he is riding at the speed in the video below, the pedestrian’s injuries will be more serious because they are likely to be knocked over. If he is flat out to cut out the lights, the pedestrian could be killed. But even if no-one is hit, even if there isn’t a near-miss, just by riding like this the cyclist is saying that he is prepared to risk our safety for his convenience.
In short, the cyclists are ignoring our contract. But if people ignore a contract, the contract no longer works. And this is what is happening here. Now, in order to to be safe, we have to radically change our rules for our social space. Mainly, we have to look behind us every single time we want to change direction, even if we are walking fast, because a bicycle will be faster than us. Also we have to look much further in each direction when we move across the pavement for any reason. In other words, we must start to behave like road users ourselves, always watching out for vehicles.
So what has happened is that the road has actually been extended onto the pavement. This change is entirely to pedestrians' detriment, converting our polite, quiet space into a traffic corridor. And it has been imposed on us by a group of people without valid reason, unlike the genuine exceptions.
If you look at this video from Tokyo (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2hqFkHkqHdg) you will see all of this. The cyclists are passing very close to the pedestrians, on both sides, at 10-12 mph, easily fast enough to knock them over if they collide. They don't collide only because the pedestrians keep a dead straight line, knowing that cyclists will be coming up from behind them at a speed that will hurt them if they are hit. This is not normal pavement behaviour. It is the behaviour of a road-user, sticking to his lane. Nor is there any interaction between cyclist and pedestrian. There is no time.
That pavement is now a risky place that people are relieved to have negotiated safely. Instead of being a social space, it is an alienated environment to be endured, like being on a very crowded train. All this is a net loss to pedestrians. And what has happened in Tokyo is what is now happening here. And for no good reason.
Why would we not mind?
I think the introduction of cyclists onto the pavement is changing the definition of what a pavement is. The pavement is currently a complicated social setting, with all kinds of rules about the consideration that pedestrians show each other. There's an unspoken, but quite sophisticated, contract between pedestrians that should guarantee equal dignity and equal safety to everyone. Of course, this doesn't always work properly, but it works pretty well.
As a result a pavement is somewhere where pedestrians can wander around. If we want to move sideways, in and out of shops, or to look in a shop window, or to talk to a friend, or to post a letter, or to cross the road, we can. A cursory glance is enough, because everyone else is moving at walking speed. If we do bump into someone, it will be a soft collision, the likelihood of injury very small and equally shared. A proper apology can be given and accepted, and no harm done, physical or psychological.
Bicycles change all this.
Firstly, they are heavy, obtrusive, awkwardly-shaped, metal objects, quite unlike people, and even at low speeds a collision with one can hurt. Any faster, it may knock you over. But it is less likely to hurt the cyclist, whose body is not being struck with anything and who has a metal frame to brace himself against. This changes the whole dynamic.
Secondly, at 10 mph (which is normal) it is very difficult to have any interaction with a cyclist, as you would with another pedestrian. So is there is not the same scope for "after you" or "thanks", or any of the myriad unspoken gestures and acknowledgments that make negotiating this common space mutually easier. This means that pedestrians become merely obstacles to be avoided, which is not how we see each other. This coarsens the human interaction taking place.
Thirdly, cyclists cannot step sideways. When there is a close call, we have to get out of their way.
Lastly, many cyclists have a combination of naivety and selfishness, and believe that "their skill" is such that they will always avoid an accident. But the unpredictable nature of the social space they are entering means that skill is not enough.
So the social rules that create equality and safety between pedestrians don't work between pedestrians and cyclists. The power dynamic is on the cyclists' side.
There are exceptions to the contract whereby pedestrians agree not to inconvenience or endanger each other. When a mother pushes her child in a buggy, we keep out of her way. Same for wheelchairs, motorised or otherwise, people carrying heavy luggage, small children riding bicycles, adults pushing bicycles etc. These people all have good reasons for making us walk round them, or for placing us at some small degree of risk. So we don't mind.
A cyclist breaks our contract when he comes onto the pavement because the size and awkwardness (wheels, handlebars) of his machine mean that he is a nuisance. So what he does is to dismount and turn himself into a pedestrian. He thereby becomes less of a nuisance and shows that he respects our space and our contract. In this way he becomes a valid exception. Not to dismount is therefore bad manners. And any adult who thinks that manners don’t matter is still a child.
If he is riding faster than walking speed, as they usually do, he is risking the safety of any pedestrian who doesn't see him in time and gets in his way. Remember, our rules say that we can pretty much wander about as we like. Simply by riding at this speed he is making a statement that he is prepared to risk startling, upsetting and bruising us. If he is riding at the speed in the video below, the pedestrian’s injuries will be more serious because they are likely to be knocked over. If he is flat out to cut out the lights, the pedestrian could be killed. But even if no-one is hit, even if there isn’t a near-miss, just by riding like this the cyclist is saying that he is prepared to risk our safety for his convenience.
In short, the cyclists are ignoring our contract. But if people ignore a contract, the contract no longer works. And this is what is happening here. Now, in order to to be safe, we have to radically change our rules for our social space. Mainly, we have to look behind us every single time we want to change direction, even if we are walking fast, because a bicycle will be faster than us. Also we have to look much further in each direction when we move across the pavement for any reason. In other words, we must start to behave like road users ourselves, always watching out for vehicles.
So what has happened is that the road has actually been extended onto the pavement. This change is entirely to pedestrians' detriment, converting our polite, quiet space into a traffic corridor. And it has been imposed on us by a group of people without valid reason, unlike the genuine exceptions.
If you look at this video from Tokyo (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2hqFkHkqHdg) you will see all of this. The cyclists are passing very close to the pedestrians, on both sides, at 10-12 mph, easily fast enough to knock them over if they collide. They don't collide only because the pedestrians keep a dead straight line, knowing that cyclists will be coming up from behind them at a speed that will hurt them if they are hit. This is not normal pavement behaviour. It is the behaviour of a road-user, sticking to his lane. Nor is there any interaction between cyclist and pedestrian. There is no time.
That pavement is now a risky place that people are relieved to have negotiated safely. Instead of being a social space, it is an alienated environment to be endured, like being on a very crowded train. All this is a net loss to pedestrians. And what has happened in Tokyo is what is now happening here. And for no good reason.
Why would we not mind?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
+1. A perfect argument and I think one that only a fanatical pavement cyclist would find fault with.
adds21
Rider of bikes
- Location
- North Somerset
I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, your first paragraph is interesting:
So where do we draw the line? Obviously cycling down the pavement on Oxford Street on a Saturday morning is unacceptable, but what about here, or here?.
This is exactly why the Police use their discretion, and why, to my mind at least, it's not as black and white as "thou must not cycle on the pavement".
So where do we draw the line? Obviously cycling down the pavement on Oxford Street on a Saturday morning is unacceptable, but what about here, or here?.
This is exactly why the Police use their discretion, and why, to my mind at least, it's not as black and white as "thou must not cycle on the pavement".
I think that's a much fairer and compelling argument than all your previous agressive and insulting comments up until now, OFC. So I respect you for that.
Thing is, we ALL draw a line somewhere - even you allow little kids on tricycles on the pavement so there is no black and white. The police and home office have decided to draw the line at anyone riding inconsiderately on the pavement, and I understand that, even though I think it's a bit sad when you see guys in all the gear riding on pavement when there's perfectly useable road right next to them, even if they are barely moving above 'jogging' pace.
Which reminds me. How do you feel about people running on the pavement? Either joggers going for a run, or someone sprinting to catch a bus? How do you measure danger from them against someone tootling on a bicycle?
What are your thoughts on 'shared use' pavement / cycle paths? Does that not conflict with your argument?
Either way, it doesn't matter what those of us who think considerate pavement cycling, whilst perhaps sad, isn't the end of the world - the police and home office have decided it's ok - so you'd be better off writing to your MP than arguing with us. You may notice few, if any, of the people on this thread taking an opposing view to yourself actually ride on pavements themselves.
Thing is, we ALL draw a line somewhere - even you allow little kids on tricycles on the pavement so there is no black and white. The police and home office have decided to draw the line at anyone riding inconsiderately on the pavement, and I understand that, even though I think it's a bit sad when you see guys in all the gear riding on pavement when there's perfectly useable road right next to them, even if they are barely moving above 'jogging' pace.
Which reminds me. How do you feel about people running on the pavement? Either joggers going for a run, or someone sprinting to catch a bus? How do you measure danger from them against someone tootling on a bicycle?
What are your thoughts on 'shared use' pavement / cycle paths? Does that not conflict with your argument?
Either way, it doesn't matter what those of us who think considerate pavement cycling, whilst perhaps sad, isn't the end of the world - the police and home office have decided it's ok - so you'd be better off writing to your MP than arguing with us. You may notice few, if any, of the people on this thread taking an opposing view to yourself actually ride on pavements themselves.
Firstly, I agree with most all of OFC's post, so when I counter a few specific details, that doesn't detract from what I see as a good summary of the unwritten contract which is broken by cycling on the pavement.
That could, of course, just be a reflection of the places that I ride (Windsor Great Park, Thames Path etc), and it's nothing more than personal experience which may, of course, differ for others.
On the second bit, I am wider and less manoeuvrable when walking than riding, so I see myself as more of a nuisance. This is why I stay on the bike when there are peds around.
However, I think that OFC's opening paragraph may answer your question as, again in my experience, shared use paths are in rural or quiet locations rather than in areas of high volume traffic.
I don't agree with the first and third bits that I've enboldened. Even when cycling legally (on shared use paths or bridleways), I slow down to around walking speed until I've cleared any pedestrians. Everyone I've ridden with does the same, I don't see those riding at higher speeds as being "normal" or "usual".
That could, of course, just be a reflection of the places that I ride (Windsor Great Park, Thames Path etc), and it's nothing more than personal experience which may, of course, differ for others.
On the second bit, I am wider and less manoeuvrable when walking than riding, so I see myself as more of a nuisance. This is why I stay on the bike when there are peds around.
See my thoughts on that issue above. I cede priority to pedestrians whenever sharing their space.
However, I think that OFC's opening paragraph may answer your question as, again in my experience, shared use paths are in rural or quiet locations rather than in areas of high volume traffic.
Actually, there's a great deal of shared use pavement on my commute between Nottingham & Derby - much of it in urban areas - and some of it unmarked or unsignposted - found out a lot of shared use facilities by looking at local council cycling maps. Then you have the on-pavement marked cycle paths which there is nothing to stop pedestrians walking in. Is it acceptable to charge down them as you would on road if, legally speaking, you are allowed to?
Again, far too many shades of grey here to say a blanket NO or YES to riding on pavements - hence the legal standpoint of "lets just say NO but advise against prosecuting unless they are being a menace as it would get too legally complicated to break down in solid legal terms all the situations where it may be ok to ride on the pavement".
And deserted pavements in industrial estates or alongside roads like the Egham Bypass?
In that context, I agree with most if not all of it and would not massively change my opinions were the pavement legally a "shared use" path. It has everything to do with social expectations and diddle-all to do with "The Law" except insofar as the law helps frame and reflects social expectations.
Clandy
Well-Known Member
Southend Council, in their 'wisdom', are currently installing a shared use path on the busiest part of the seafront. I will be remaining in the road along the seafront.
It must be one of those old-fashioned bicycles he's on about.
Seriously, OFC - no one begins a forum post with formal Acknowledgements. There's much to agree with in what you say, but if you're going to start troubling us with essays they'll need to be a bit more rigorous. Where do teenagers on bmxs and jump bikes fit in? Why do the same people ride differently on road bikes than on mtbs? Is vehicular cycling something that arises from the nature of bicycles or is it a political imperative, a statement of equality necessitated by the dominance of motor vehicles? To what extent is the concept of the pavement or sidewalk in itself already a capitulation to that dominance? Anyway, it's been a very entertaining thread, with you and Clandy wildly underestimating your opponent at every turn.
coco69
Veteran
- Location
- North west
Did you ask them why,it could of been a simple thing such as many cyclists i know do not trust the roads and feel more safe on the pavement( which is the important thing),1st time on a bike etc....to many do gooders and to be honest with you if someone told me to ' get off the pavement' without asking why i would of reacted the same!
[QUOTE 1101611"]
I've gone off you TC. I can spend days and several essays trying to write what others (grrrrrr) can manage in a couple of sentences. Maybe I should have seen my reading weeks as just that, rather than school holidays.
[/quote]
Heh heh. Just raising a question or two - there's a lot of black-and-white thinking when it comes to this (and to disobeying red lights). I'm something of a fan of your inexhaustibly patient style of argument, though I used to find it a bit chilling when you used it on poor old Linfy...
I've gone off you TC. I can spend days and several essays trying to write what others (grrrrrr) can manage in a couple of sentences. Maybe I should have seen my reading weeks as just that, rather than school holidays.
[/quote]
Heh heh. Just raising a question or two - there's a lot of black-and-white thinking when it comes to this (and to disobeying red lights). I'm something of a fan of your inexhaustibly patient style of argument, though I used to find it a bit chilling when you used it on poor old Linfy...