Pavement cyclists.

[Bicycle]

This thread is in some ways not unlike a very, very brutal boxing match.

Much as I dread at times the way it's going, I find myself compelled to stay and watch.

I know little of traffic law, but I'm pretty sure that some people will see things one way and some will see them another.

One or two of the responses are slightly reminiscent of the 'Mr Angry' driver shaking a fist and shouting unheard road-use advice to the innocent cyclist or motorcyclist.... The driver, insulated from human contact by doors & windows, can say whatever he or she wants. The same protection is offered by a Web forum - and sometimes the same type of outburst may result.

The edge enjoyed by the web forum is that the road-rage sufferer has only seconds to respond. The chatroom contributor can spend hours seething about some imagined slight and drafting the perfect reply.

Please keep the entertainment coming... but please don't let it get too enjoyable for the spectator.

Surely we are getting close to Round Twelve...

...of twelve.

 

[Dan B]

And to what extent is "vehicular cycling" a bone thrown to people who assume that vehicles are the only things that should be allowed on roads, in the hope that by placating them and acting more like motor cars (e.g. paying so-called road tax or eschewing filtering, two-abreast riding, the use of cycle facilities and other advantages of the bike over the car) they will better tolerate us?


(1) A bicycle is in law a vehicle, and there should be no need to pretend to be a motor vehicle in order that drivers of motor vehicles take us seriously

(2) The mounted equestrian is, to the best of my knowledge, not a vehicle at all, and does not have to pretend to be one, yet the majority of motorists would (sometimes reluctantly) admit their right to use the road.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there.

 

[theclaud]

And to what extent is "vehicular cycling" a bone thrown to people who assume that vehicles are the only things that should be allowed on roads, in the hope that by placating them and acting more like motor cars (e.g. paying so-called road tax or eschewing filtering, two-abreast riding, the use of cycle facilities and other advantages of the bike over the car) they will better tolerate us?


(1) A bicycle is in law a vehicle, and there should be no need to pretend to be a motor vehicle in order that drivers of motor vehicles take us seriously

(2) The mounted equestrian is, to the best of my knowledge, not a vehicle at all, and does not have to pretend to be one, yet the majority of motorists would (sometimes reluctantly) admit their right to use the road.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there.

I don't think it's a tangent, Dan - I think it gets to the crux of the matter. We are not talking about fixed categories, but of modes (both of transport and of, well... being). Mr Paul is opening the door to all sorts of interesting insights into the Ontology of the Cyclist.

 

[summerdays]

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.

I was with my bike on the pavement last week ... (walking with my friend on the way back from the school drop off) and I was almost hit by a car reversing blindly out of a driveway ... given the time of day very dangerous as there were still children on their way to school. My bike wheel was 6 inches from the car rear wing. We do need to look all around us, there are numerous occasions when you need to move quickly out of a car's way on the pavement.

I see many pavement cyclists (not least children and teenagers making their way to a skate park on their BMX's ... actually saw some walking on the path a few weeks ago), but only a few annoy me. I think those are the ones that the police should crack down on. We have many laws that are applied inconsistently or not at all - such as parking on the pavement which has resulted in me having to walk in the road to get past. Until recently I was having very little success at getting the police/council to deal with these. I do agree that the rules should be applied consistently but they aren't, and nobody has ever clarified at exactly what age it is not acceptable (note the word acceptable not illegal) to cycle on the pavement just quoting the FPN age as a suggested limit.

If you feel very strongly about this issue why not attend your local neighbourhood forum and raise it as something you would like to be prioritised by the police. There are some districts in Bristol where this has been raised as an issue such as Redland - so there are signs up around the Gloucester Road reminding cyclists not to cycle on the pavement or risk a fine. I felt strongly about the parked cars so I have gone to the meetings with other like minded residents and raised it as an issue and it is now getting a higher priority in this area - I have seen numberous cars with parking fines and some have been towed away - in fact I was chatting to the local policeman who was also on his bike ... both of us on the road, only yesterday. YOU can be active about getting it changed.

 

[gannet]

Can't claim to have read all the posts in this long thread...

When I was growing up (80's) there were very few cyclists using the pavements, but there was also very few 'cycle' lanes be they the pitiful along the side of the road variety or the shared footpaths.

The proliferation of the shared cycle path seems to encourage cyclists to use paths rather than the road especially when they are so poorly signed.

As for whether some cyclists use them because of a lack of confidence on the road, don't know, but they won't get the confidence if they don't try or don't do any training (does cycling proficiency still run?).

Do I use pavements or even shared paths? no never - unless you count riding over the pavement outside my house to get onto my drive.

On the south circular late last year there were some roadworks which lasted a few months which closed the road in one direction. They had quite well signposted 'cyclist diversion' signs to take us round the closure. I observed these on the first day only to find them spitting me out about 50-75 metres BEFORE the end of the roadworks - what were we supposed to do... cycle the wrong way down the road or on the pavement. I dismounted till I could cross etc. The next day I found a different route. Interestingly the police were actually stopping cyclists who ignored the diversion and mounted the pavement. What they received I wouldn't know.

I was always taught bikes are vehicles and shouldn't be on the pavement which are for pedestrians UNLESS they only have one brake - does this still apply I wonder?

just my 2p worth

 

[adds21]

I was always taught bikes are vehicles and shouldn't be on the pavement which are for pedestrians UNLESS they only have one brake - does this still apply I wonder?

Never heard that before. Many fixies only have one brake.

 

[summerdays]

Can't claim to have read all the posts in this long thread...

When I was growing up (80's) there were very few cyclists using the pavements, but there was also very few 'cycle' lanes be they the pitiful along the side of the road variety or the shared footpaths.

The proliferation of the shared cycle path seems to encourage cyclists to use paths rather than the road especially when they are so poorly signed.

As for whether some cyclists use them because of a lack of confidence on the road, don't know, but they won't get the confidence if they don't try or don't do any training (does cycling proficiency still run?).

Do I use pavements or even shared paths? no never - unless you count riding over the pavement outside my house to get onto my drive.

On the south circular late last year there were some roadworks which lasted a few months which closed the road in one direction. They had quite well signposted 'cyclist diversion' signs to take us round the closure. I observed these on the first day only to find them spitting me out about 50-75 metres BEFORE the end of the roadworks - what were we supposed to do... cycle the wrong way down the road or on the pavement. I dismounted till I could cross etc. The next day I found a different route. Interestingly the police were actually stopping cyclists who ignored the diversion and mounted the pavement. What they received I wouldn't know.

I was always taught bikes are vehicles and shouldn't be on the pavement which are for pedestrians UNLESS they only have one brake - does this still apply I wonder?

just my 2p worth

Cycling proficiency does still exist under a new name and is certainly better than the training that I recieved where we never left the playground! (late 1970's). I guess if quite a few of my generation received similar training then it doesn't really leave us set up adequately to cycle on the roads that are much busier. Then that generation become parents and are scared to let their children on the roads to play let alone cycle. I think that has caused some of the increase in pavement cyclists. The fact that I made the change from pavement to road always gives me hope that others will too.

I don't think there is a law about 1 brake is allowed on the pavement ... but if so it might explain why so many BMX'ers have either one or 0 brakes!!! (Somehow I think it is just trendy )

 

[summerdays]

Never heard that before. Many fixies only have one brake.

But AFAIK the legs count as one of the two brakes?.

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

+1. A perfect argument

Cheers, mate!

and I think one that only a fanatical pavement cyclist would find fault with.

Well, indeed. As has been monotonously demonstrated on this thread.

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

My 9 month old superthread just refuses to die...maybe it will give birth to another superthread.

My guess is either

1) Helmet use

2) RLJers

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

 

[mangaman]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots.

Wow - thanks, you're a real charmer. Licenses / taxes - for what?
Are you saying if we have those we can cycle on the pavement?
If you mean all cyclists should be licensed and taxed for cycling on the road as a punishment for a few pavement cyclists, you need to try to find a sense of proportion.


I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists.

And all this is based on a chat with "several friends"

 

[Clandy]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

Licensing won't happen. It has been an expensive failure everywhere it has been tried. Where do you start? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old on their Tomy? The eight year old on their BMX? Then there are practicalities, where do you put a license plate on a Brompton, a Moulton, a Bike Friday? Or any bike with a saddle bag and panniers? How do you enforce it, and who pays to enforce it?

 

[theclaud]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

Typed, I suspect, without conscious irony...

 

[Mark_Robson]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

Thanks for making me chuckle. It's nice to have a little humour before I leave for work.

 

[adds21]

How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.

:troll: