Pavement cyclists.

[Mark_Robson]

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?

I'm afraid that I did.

 

[GFamily]

Yes. I would dismount without being prompted if I was an inconvenience to pedestrians also. If I was no inconvenience to them and they asked me to dismount, I may offer them an explination as to why for this very small section I am on the pavement (probly about 10 metres total)

If it's only 10 metres, why not just obey the law and walk it? Surely it saves the moral peril of having to justify to others your illegal actions.

I wonder how often you find yourself in the wrong?

 

[GFamily]

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.

What about it? Does the existence of such areas in some areas of central Birmingham or anywhere have any relevance to non shared use pavements elsewhere?

Most pavements are not 'unsigned shared use', so cyclists' use of them would be illegal.

And if some cyclists do find themselves cycling around a 'shared use area' rather than cycling through it, their health benefits will probably be increased; cycling is so efficient I'd expect 1 minute cycling to be a lot less beneficial than 3 minutes walking the same distance.

 

[GFamily]

And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)?

Just out of interest, what do you do? What is your opinion of them?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

If the pavements are so safe how do pedestrians get killed?

on the roads or cars and bikes mounting the pavement illegally

for those claiming lack of confidence being the reason why cyclists ride on the pavement - how do you build up your confidence on the roads by avoiding them?

I've taught my kids to ride and have sen them on the pavement whilst they've been to all intents and purposes functionally incompetent as cyclists - wobbly and focussing too much on themselves, I rode on the road beside them - the world didn't end. By the sound of the OP the two cyclists didn't fit the criteria of being functionally imcompetent and maybe shouldn't have been on the pavement.

 

[brokenbetty]

And if anyone with any experience of city living claims that you can get anywhere on a bike using quiet routes plus a minute or two of walking, then I really don't see the point in addressing such a strange and clearly questionable claim.

Not anywhere, but getting to the majority of destinations using quiet routes plus a minute or two of walking at a time to get between busy parts without resorting to the pavement? Yes, I'm sure I could. Easier in a city than the country really, given that we have more roads to chose from. The main problem would be destinations on the other side of the river.

 

[iAmiAdam]

Well, this has put me off my ride tomorrow, knowing that so many people will be willing to endanger people who cycle on pavements as they are not confident enough on the roads. Irony anyone?

 

[brokenbetty]

Nope, still doesn't wash. Unless London is different to when I lived there, and different to any other city in the country.

What parts of London are only accessible by main roads then?

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

MisterPaul: "For the record I think that we should have extensive facilities so that cyclists can ride at their own pace, comfortably and safely and with children when necessary. Until we do cyclists will compromise."

But you're not compromising. You're taking. Don't you speak English?

There is no point in being polite to people who cycle on the pavement. Whenever I have said anything polite to them, they have either ignored me or responded with abuse. It's illegal and dangerous, they know it's illegal and dangerous, and they don't care. A cyclist doesn't have to be going at twenty miles per hour to cause serious injury. All you have to do is knock someone over, which is easy to do if you are coming up from behind them and they have no idea that you are there. Plenty of times I have been about to go into a shop and some idiot has come past me at ten miles an hour and nearly flattened me.

Some cyclists cycle as I used to do. On the road, stopping at traffic lights, behaving like adults. And don't pretend that the roads were safer then. Try Elephant and Castle or Marble Arch roundabouts without traffic lights. Get your speed up and get in there - or walk. As for cycling along the pavement in the high street, that would have been unthinkable - just childish and selfish. But these days most cyclists are self-obsessed, whiney infants. The many spoling it for the few.

If cyclists continue to think only about themelves (which they will), the Government will end up licensing cyclists as they do car drivers, banning the idiots, etc. That would have seemed ridiculous years ago, but not any more.

 

[mickle]

"But these days most cyclists are self-obsessed, whiney infants".

I think you might have taken a wrong turn back there. This, in case you haven't noticed, is a cycling forum. Populated mostly by cyclists. The hint was in the title.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

As a society perhaps we should involve ourselves more. Illegal behaviour is antisocial which does give us a right to condemn it.

Or perhaps we should not be a society of self-important laymen who think we know everything and try to impose our will on others. Report what concerns us, yes. Take further action, perhaps not (on things less obvious than say chasing someone woo you have ust witnessed snatching a bag or suchlike)

Consider the "punishment pass" because "the peanut on a bike should be in the gutter" by someone who actualy believes wholeheartedly that cars have supreme rights and other road users are guests who must yield. That's an example of people enforcing their own erroneous interpretations onto others

Similarly the know-it-all woman who deliberately stepped in front of me on a shared-use path when i was just 3 feet away and not "speeding" causing me to choose to clip a lamp-post rather than knock her over as I struggled to stop, just so that she could begin a rant about how I should be cycling on the road whilst I rued my bruised shoulder and half-wished I'd not reacted as quick and mowed her down instead

Normally I use the road there, but the shared use is useful on my way to the train station as it directly accesses the toucan crossing as there is no facility otherwise to turn off the road to the station

We can't simply have all and sundry enforcing laws - the police struggle to comprehend the law much of the time (not unexpected, the law is a ass after all sometimes, and after all, solicitors, barristers etc specialise in different areas)

 

[sabian92]

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.

Actually, the only cyclists I see on the pavements are people who are not even old enough to wipe their own backside (kids, or old people) and they're riding so slowly they're SLOWER than a ped. I ride on the road - I've only just picked cycling up as a hobby and 99% of the time I'm on the road. I'll use the pavement if it's a bit of road with a massive line of parked cars and an empty pavement, just so I don't get in the way of cars who can't pass, which is illegal but definitely not inconsiderate.

Most cyclists DO ride on the road - the ones who don't will know it's illegal to use the pavement unless they're little kids (and I wouldn't want them on the road anyway!)

If you're under 16 you're basically immune from the "no cycling on the pavement law" anyway. The penalty is a £30 fixed penalty notice and you can't get one of those unless you're 16 or older.(At least, so I've read, don't quote me on that.)

 

[DrSquirrel]

Are you a Policeman?
Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?

Don't use that stupid phrase here.

Its a phrase you will often here from motorists too towards cyclists trying to enact their rights.

If you want people to judge each situation on its merits, surely you are asking them TO BE policemen? And wouldn't your initial question be the second one asked?

 

[Mark_Robson]

Don't use that stupid phrase here.

Its a phrase you will often here from motorists too towards cyclists trying to enact their rights.

If you want people to judge each situation on its merits, surely you are asking them TO BE policemen? And wouldn't your initial question be the second one asked?

I'll use that phrase wherever and whenever I like, thank you.
I have a friend who is a policeman and his attitude to pavement cyclists, and apparently Northumbria Polices attitude as well is exactly the same as mine. If cyclists are using pavements in preference to busy roads and they aren't endangering people in the process then leave them be. There's a massive difference between a considerate pavement cyclist and a moron tearing along with no respect or consideration for peds.

If people want to play at policing the pavements and ridding them of all cyclists then good luck to them but they might want to consider where to draw the line between "educating" cyclists and intimidating them, because the last video of such an occurrence that I saw posted on this forum looked like borderline intimidation to me. And will people be educating the police and PCSO's who cycle on the pavement as well?

 

[Vikeonabike]

Are you a Policeman?