Pavement cyclists.

[taxing]

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?

I would be very annoyed by a gorgeous blonde on a pink Pashley, I'm a girl. I'd be jealous.

Seriously though, yes, I would also be annoyed by a woman pavement cycling too, I just don't really see it. The only exceptions I make are for children and the elderly. If I can do it, so can other people who aren't particularly vulnerable.

 

[Mark_Robson]

If I can do it, so can other people who aren't particularly vulnerable.

What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?
This debate isn't as black and white as you may think and the "I do it so everyone else should do it as well" attitude won't solve the problem.

 

[Tinuts]

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.

Abso-friggin'-lutely

 

[brokenbetty]

I can completely understand that not all cyclists are prepared to cycle on all roads at all times, whether the reason is safety, holding up drivers unreasonably or just that the road doesn't go where they need to be.

However I don't see why needing to use the pavement means we have to RIDE on the pavement.

Ride it on the road, wheel it on the pavement. Simples.

 

[brokenbetty]

That can mean though that those pavement riders who you understand would have to walk for a fair proportion of their journey in some places, minimising the benefit of them cycling in the first place. We can't really expect them to wait around for our society to never improve routes for cyclists can we?

Very few would have to walk more than a minute or two. Those that do could use the time composing a letter to the council making the case to make that piece of pavement dual use

I don't have a problem with peds and bikes in the same place, just with bikes turning up where peds have good reason not to expect them. A shared path doesn't fit that description, a normal pavement does.

 

[JamesAC]

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.

+1

I find that an umbrella through the front wheel spokes emphasizes the point.

 

[taxing]

What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?
This debate isn't as black and white as you may think and the "I do it so everyone else should do it as well" attitude won't solve the problem.

Parents should dismount. My definition of vulnerable is children (under 14), the elderly, and anyone with a disability that allows them to ride a bike, but would prevent them from managing a road safely. It has to be made black and white because we're talking about something that is a law, and the law has to be black and white to avoid confusion.

 

[Norm]

What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?

That's my main problem. I don't ride on pavements but, when I'm out with the kids (both pre-teen) and cycling along a main road, I encourage them both to do so. On quieter or wider roads, I'm happy enough for them to be on the main carriageway but the rat-run outside my house is a bit of a nightmare. Anyway, I always feel guilty riding in the road at 8-10mph when I'm out with the kids but I still won't cycle on the pavement.

I find that an umbrella through the front wheel spokes emphasizes the point.

No, you are right, you should be judge and jury and impose a potential death penalty on someone for riding on the pavement.

 

[jonny jeez]

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

I've never proclaimed to hold the "answer"

But I wouldn 't start from a position of assuming that the "majority" of cyclists are too scared to ride on the road (they are not, in my experience) or that they will be aware of pedestirans when on the pavement (they mostly dont care, in my experience) or will get off when asked (they never do...in my experience).

Cylists who ride the pavement often do so at the same speed as the road and seem oblivious to pedestrians who will not expect them to be there.

Common sense is not a reliable defence as most pavement cyclist do not seem to posses this quality.

 

[Mark_Robson]

I've never proclaimed to hold the "answer"

But I wouldn 't start from a position of assuming that the "majority" of cyclists are too scared to ride on the road (they are not, in my experience) or that they will be aware of pedestirans when on the pavement (they mostly dont care, in my experience) or will get off when asked (they never do...in my experience).

Cylists who ride the pavement often do so at the same speed as the road and seem oblivious to pedestrians who will not expect them to be there.

Common sense is not a reliable defence as most pavement cyclist do not seem to posses this quality.

I don't recall saying that the majority of cyclists are too afraid to use the roads? but never mind.

Obviously your experience of pavement cyclists is totally different to mine, in fact I'm bewildered by your experience of pavement cyclists.

Just to recap, the majority of pavement cyclists aren't aware of pedestrians, and even if they are aware of them, they don't care anyway, they ride at the same speed that they would on the road and they are totally oblivious of any pedestrians around them?

Wow that's shocking, now I understand why you feel as strongly as you do.

Or maybe we have a found a new definition for the word bollocks.

Seriously though, I don't dispute that some pavement cyclists are irresponsible fools but I would dispute that they are in the majority.

No one has asked the obvious question yet, If pavement cyclists are such a problem then why aren't the Police tackling the issue? I remember a traffic cop in an earlier thread state that he would never stop anyone for riding on the pavement, unless they were cycling in a dangerous way and the Policemen that I have spoken to have the same opinion.

For the record I would like to see all cyclists either using the road or using designated cycle paths but you have to be pragmatic and accept that is isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

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.

In fact it seems to be EXPECTED by planners....

One example

http://bit.ly/9WSWNK

Now, the cycle lane itself is fine. It saves a pointless detour down and around a roundabout for the sake of it. However there is nowhere to go at the dashed give way line...

That's of course assuming that one can get to the cycle island, often difficult since cars coming from the right don't like the "left turn only" sign and try to cut across the island and the hatched prohibitive markings to go ahead illegally

The traffic light is an irrelevance since it indicates for a left turn BUT most of the time one cannot proceed until that left turn signal is lit (i.e. the light is at red for traffic going across left to right - eg the red and silver cars)

Problem being, when that light is at red, the pedestrian crossing light is at green.

The options are therefore

1) ride through the pedestrian crossing carefully giving way to anyone crossing (though not an RLJ since no red lights or stop lines have been passed)

2) cycle down the pedestrianised street.

Neither are perfect, though I choose 1 option 1 and when I pass the other end of the pedestrian zone, I am invariably passing it ahead of those who go straight on.

Either way, the facility whilst actualy quite useful, does end in ambiguity

 

[g0kmt]

And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)? Do you run them over for being out of their supposed territory?

The promonade in Fleetwood has signs with a cycle on a blue background and arrows pointing to the foot path (Nowhere near junctions) This indicates to me that the footpath is to be used for cyclists as well. There are no shared use signs on the path however. Does this mean that its a cycle path only? I don't think so.

My point is that there is sufficient confusion in everyday life that implies the use of footpaths for cycling on is OK.

The generalisms that all motorists speed, all cyclists who ride on the path are unsure of the road, are a bit useless as arguments in this case guys.

Riding on the footpath may in certain circumstances be illegal but like the more serious offences of speeding, drink driving, using mobile phones whilst driving, violence and murder that are illegal also, it will never be stamped out!!

Yer average jo public (me included) does not know every rule in the book. Most just apply common sense, unlike some.

Just my two penneth worth

 

[jonny jeez]

I don't recall saying that the majority of cyclists are too afraid to use the roads? but never mind.

.

err...no, you're right you didnt.

I was replying to Jugulars mail headed "bollocks" ...which is never a great way to start an open debate imo

but you responded to that? did you think my reply was a responce to something you had posted?

 

[brokenbetty]

We've been here before, and that claim was also incorrect then.

Really? I don't remember you showing that it was incorrect, just that it wasn't your personal experience.

And again I've asked this before, what about shared use areas that are unmarked? A significant part of Birmingham city centre for example is shared use, but there are no road signs or markings anywhere.

Marked shared use:
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "It's shared use mate"
Ped: grumble grumble grumble

Unmarked shared use:
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "It's shared use mate"
Ped: grumble grumble grumble

Not shared use:
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "I'll ride here if I want to"
Ped: typical bloody selfish cyclist

Now the ped is always going to react badly because they've been taken by surprise, but which ped is going to think worst of cyclists in future?

 

[brokenbetty]

And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)? Do you run them over for being out of their supposed territory?

I ring my bell and if they don't hear that I yell "oi!". And because they are on the road, they almost always say "oh! sorry" and move out of the way.