Pavement cyclists.

[brokenbetty]

IMO this is not accurate, it is possible to navigate a pavement when neccessary, doing so carefully, taking care not to endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

It doesn't matter what the cyclist does. It's a territorial thing. Just being in the pedestrians' space is an act of aggression which the brain responds to in defence mode.

You know all those videos of close overtakes that get posted? Why do cyclists get so annoyed even though 99% of them pass without incident? Because the driver is in their space, taking a risk with the cyclist that the cyclist has no say in.

It's the same for pavement cyclists.

 

[Debian]

It's both a grey and a non-grey area.

It's illegal to cycle on the footway, that's on the statute books. But the rule of law can only be upheld if the majority of the population so governed agree to abide by said law, i.e. it's rule by consensus.

It can be argued that banning pavement cycling under some circumstances is ridiculous and therefore the rule of law cannot and would not be upheld by the majority.

I sometimes ride on the pavement; there are stretches of narrow rural A road in my location that carries fast traffic, they also have long stretches of footpath most of which probably hasn't seen a pedestrian in months if not years, and I often cycle along it if the road is busy or if I feel fragile. This harms or inconveniences no-one and a ban on doing this simply cannot be defensible.

I rarely cycle on urban footpaths but have been guilty of it (and feel guilty about doing it) from time to time - perhaps if it's pelting with rain, the traffic's backed up and I just want to get home. But here I am much more circumspect; I ride slowly along such pavements and I always stop if I encounter pedestrians. Again this inconveniences no-one and improves my quality of life on that occasion.

I don't think it's defensible to hold a position of simply disagreeing with pavement cycling under any and all circumstances.

 

[StuartG]

Pavement cyclist covers such a broad range of behaviour and attitudes that it is pretty much meaningless.

Even the law recognises that in while making it technically illegal the advice on giving PCNs is that it should be reserved for anti-social cycling.

Does that include some of mine last year when roadworks led to a lengthy, hilly and dangerous diversion or quick ride along 50 yards of pavement? Of course I would dismount if it interfered with anyone but what is the point if it does not. Or indeed many other reasons that seem reasonable to me and would, I hope, be equally reasonable to a passing plod.

Oh and I got told off the other week for being dismounted on the pavement. Some pedestrians one can never satisfy!

 

[Ticktockmy]

I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.

Same here, no need to say anything, as most know that they should not be riding on the pavement.

 

[BSRU]

I far as I know, in Swindon, all the designated cycle paths are actually pedestrian pavements opened up for use by bicycles. Most just have a small blue sign somewhere and a small few have white dividing lines. This is obviously the cheapest way to meet government targets. This not only creates a problem with interactions between different types of users, most pedestrians seem unaware it is shared, it also seems to encourage general pavement cycling everywhere.
Almost 100% of my journey is on the road, I rarely see other cyclists on the road, not great if I want to scalp but good at preventing me being scalped.

 

[jonny jeez]

Bollocks.
The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.

Thank you, I assume the paragraph above is an extract from the Oxford English dictionary and is transcribed on our behalf as the definition of the word Bollocks.

ie.
Bollocks (bŏl'əks)

Middle english slang, The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road, etc...

In which case, I wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you for defining utter-bollocks for me.

 

[Mark_Robson]

Thank you, I assume the paragraph above is an extract from the Oxford English dictionary and is transcribed on our behalf as the definition of the word Bollocks.

ie.
Bollocks (bŏl'əks)

Middle english slang, The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road, etc...

In which case, I wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you for defining utter-bollocks for me.

So what would be your solution to the problem of pavement cyclists?

 

[dondare]

It's both a grey and a non-grey area.

It's illegal to cycle on the footway, that's on the statute books. But the rule of law can only be upheld if the majority of the population so governed agree to abide by said law, i.e. it's rule by consensus.

It can be argued that banning pavement cycling under some circumstances is ridiculous and therefore the rule of law cannot and would not be upheld by the majority.

The majority of motorists exceed the speed limit and a substantial minority use a phone whilst driving. These practices are dangerous and illegal and motorists can be prosecuted for them.
No rule by consensus there, then.

Even if the majority of cyclists wanted pavement cycling, which in any case I doubt is the case, the majority of pedestrians do not. So no consensus there, either.

 

[dondare]

So what would be your solution to the problem of pavement cyclists?

Rigorous enforcement of all traffic laws. Then cycling on the carriageway would be safer.
So would driving on the carriageway and crossing it on foot.

 

[taxing]

Strangely enough when I walked everywhere considerate cyclists on the pavement didn't bother me. But since I started cycling to work two weeks ago I've become a pavement cyclist hater. I haven't ridden a bike in ten years but I soon got the hang of it again and built up the confidence necessary to ride on big roads pretty quickly, so why haven't they done the same? I wouldn't mind if I saw an old dear riding on the pavement, but the majority are middle aged men wearing those thick hi-vis jackets that builders and people who work with machinery wear, and they're always dirty (as though they've been worked in). That leads me to assume that they're healthy. So why am I riding on the road, and they're not?

 

[Mark_Robson]

Rigorous enforcement of all traffic laws. Then cycling on the carriageway would be safer.
So would driving on the carriageway and crossing it on foot.

It's cyclists perception of safety that you need to change. If people are frightened of traffic then they will avoid riding on the roads, regardless of how well people are driving.

 

[StuartG]

That's the problem Mr Taxing. It takes a very hard man to be annoyed by a little kid learning to ride (on the pavement) or gorgeous blonde on a pink Pashley scooting up to the butchers. But a couple of hoodies ... well is it about cycling or our attitudes to other people?

The base problem is that very occasionally ~once a year I get buzzed by a bike on the pavement. Many times a week I get obstructed by a motor car. That's how it is round here. But people here moan about the cyclists. Much more rarely the motorist.

 

[martynjc1977]

Strangely enough when I walked everywhere considerate cyclists on the pavement didn't bother me. But since I started cycling to work two weeks ago I've become a pavement cyclist hater. I haven't ridden a bike in ten years but I soon got the hang of it again and built up the confidence necessary to ride on big roads pretty quickly, so why haven't they done the same? I wouldn't mind if I saw an old dear riding on the pavement, but the majority are middle aged men wearing those thick hi-vis jackets that builders and people who work with machinery wear, and they're always dirty (as though they've been worked in). That leads me to assume that they're healthy. So why am I riding on the road, and they're not?

Because apparently you have a death wish, lmfao,

 

[Domeo]

The more times drivers see pavement cycling the more it reinforces their perception that that is where cyclists should be and will continue eroding our rights to be on the road. This also applies to all the segregation schemes 'advocates' bang on about.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

I sometimes ride on the pavement; there are stretches of narrow rural A road in my location that carries fast traffic, they also have long stretches of footpath most of which probably hasn't seen a pedestrian in months if not years, and I often cycle along it if the road is busy or if I feel fragile. This harms or inconveniences no-one and a ban on doing this simply cannot be defensible.
...
I don't think it's defensible to hold a position of simply disagreeing with pavement cycling under any and all circumstances.

I agree with both of these sentiments. For instance, I know I'm not a fast cyclist, and on an A road there is no way I can make any pretense of not holding traffic up in the road. Recently I rode from Cheltenham to Tewkesbury; and there's a bit of a hill coming out of Cheltenham. As my uphill speed is stupidly low; and traffic wants to be doing the national speed limit; it's stupid for me to be in the road if there is an alternative. It's also stupid for me to hug the side of the road knowing what crud usually lurks there (especially on a road you don't know well).

Now, in those situations, if there were to be a pedestrian anywhere near me, I slow to practically walking speed (as I do when legitimately on a shared use pavement).

Speeding and/or inconsiderate pavement cyclists - especially when there is no reason for it - do annoy me no end. Mr SHK & I were recently overtaken very closely and with no warning on the pavement (as pedestrians!) by a fixie who was racing along at a good speed - this on a road where there was a good cycle lane (and one in his direction as well) - and the speed he was going he would have been keeping up with traffic just fine. He didn't slow down at all to come past us, and I can see if there had been an elderly or disabled person about bad things could have happened.

I also sometimes cycle in to work using an alternate route. Here I'm stuck - if I get on the road I need to either negotiate a large two lane roundabout (which I am not confident doing) or I need to use a subway (which I'm not actually sure is a cycle path as well; there is a suspicious looking faded sign which I think was once a no-cycling sign) and then somehow get from the pavement onto the road; then pedal a short stretch before negotiating a horrid junction currently undergoing roadworks* and then trying to turn right across traffic (not at a set of lights) immediately afterward.
What I do instead is cycle along the shared use path until it stops being shared use (with no alternate route for cyclists travelling in my direction!) and then coast along very slowly for the remaining bit, at roughly walking speed.

*a different set from the one mentioned in my previous post on the 'close overtakes' thread