Pavement cyclists.

[OldFashionedCyclist]

Heartened to see many replies from the old-fashioned, gung-ho attitude to cycling, where you ride properly and confidently on the road, taking the risks that are part of the deal.

Objecting to people cycling on the pavement is not "being a policeman". It is a perfectly reasonable response to inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Cyclists do it too, and rightly so. Check out http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/ if you haven't already seen it.

"Consider the real reason why children on pavements make you smile and adults behaving the same don't and you'll see what your real issue is." Well, obviously it's because they're very small and have Mr Men helmets! You’re basing your argument on the idea that we should treat you as if you are a tiny child. I rest my case.

I think a few of these people could learn to ride properly, with a bit of encouragement, but most belong on public transport.

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101441"]
What am I to observe? [/quote]

You're not supposed to observe anything. You're supposed to ask people how they feel and listen to what they tell you, not assume you know what they think based on appearances

Why not be bothered about pavement cyclists where they're allowed, and bothered about pavement cyclists where they're not allowed but behaving in the same way?

Answered many times. UTFS

 

[snailracer]

If the council man paints some lines on the pavement and puts up a few blue signs, not only does it became legal and therefore safe to cycle on the pavement, it also becomes morally acceptable and the pedestrians are then considered the nuisance! Awesome, innit?

 

[Clandy]

Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Don't want to be labelled a moron? Then don't do it.

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101451"]
...yet you claim that all but a couple of pavement cyclists you've only seen are causing a nuisance. And one example you gave yesterday that you said wasn't causing a nuisance, without you asking anyone how they feel about it....[/quote]

I said explicitly I only saw one who I thought was considerate. See what I did there?I acknowledged that this was just my opinion and was careful not to extrapolate my experience to a universal truth.

Similarly, I base my assertion that pedestrians find pavement cyclists inconsiderate and frightening on the people who tell me "I don't like cyclists on the pavement, I find them inconsiderate and frightening". I don't invent a second class of cyclists and claim that the pedestrians are really talking about those other guys.

But as I said I'm happy to join you for afternoons in Brum and Tottenham canvassing more views.


[QUOTE 1101451"]
Sorry, but you haven't.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I have. I suggest you try that search again.

 

[Glow worm]

BloodypotheadsruiningthiscountryinfringingonmyrightsandpretendingtobesocoolbloodyhippiesthelotofthemIbettheyridebikesonthepavementtooshouldbetaxedlikecarsandgetofftheroadI' vegotrightstoothey'reamenace.

 

[JamesAC]

I got told be someone walking along the pavement to "get off the F"£$%ING road"... we cyclists just can't win.

Cycling on the pavement in illegal; cycling on the road (usually) isn't.

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

[QUOTE 1101449"]
Pavement cycling does not have to be "inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour" and in the main is neither. [/quote]
No, it is always inconsiderate because of the hazard of bicycles’ handlebars and general size and weight, and the relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians. This means pedestrians either have to keep out of your way or force you to go around them. All of this is annoying, and it is plainly inconsiderate to annoy other people. Frankly, it’s absurd that you should need this explained to you.

And when cyclists ride at faster than walking pace, which they generally do (in the real world, if not in the world you inhabit), it is also potentially dangerous, sometimes extremely so. I have nearly been knocked over by quite a few idiots coming past me from behind, not at any great speed. This is all routine behaviour by pavement cyclists. Again, this should not need explaining.

It is also illegal, which ought to concern you, but clearly does not, which shows your immaturity.

Children have nothing to do with this. Small children ride very small bicycles or tricycles, very slowly, with an adult alongside. No-one minds getting out of their way. Older children one makes allowances for as well, but then there comes a point when they are old enough to take the plunge and ride on the road. Even then, if they lack the confidence to turn right at a busy junction, for example, they can get off and walk.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that driving or riding anything on a road is a serious, adult activity, with attendant risks. You are not entitled to pass those risks onto others just because you don’t fancy it.

On the other hand, I am really pleased that so many people on this site are genuine cyclists who understand what cycling ought to be about. I don’t think the excitement of Marble Arch, pre traffic lights, would have fazed them. Not everyone has become soft and silly.

[QUOTE 1101449"]
I think "chillax" is the word that youngsters use these days.
[/quote]
Well, you should know.

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101459"]
I can remember your response. It was about blue signs and white lines. And my question was about unmarked shared-use.
[/quote]

Ah, you do remember the thread then. And yes, you made the same strawman misinterpretation that time as well.

But as I said a long time ago, let's leave it here. I've gone through these strawmen before.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101459"]
Ok, so your view is that all pavement cycling is inconsiderate because it always has a negative impact on other pavement users?
[/quote]


If a cyclist is older than 12 then they should not be on the pavement. They should grow a pair and learn to ride legally on the road.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 1101462"]
...

If we're to continue to promote cycling in this country for everyone then we need to be real about this, and not seek to justify what drivers push us to. Pavement cycling doesn't have to inconvenience anyone, and in the main doesn't. Let's not pretend something different and thereby restrict the use of this fantastic machine.
[/quote]

Here Here!

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101462"]

If we're to continue to promote cycling in this country for everyone then we need to be real about this, and not seek to justify what our internal drivers push us to. Pavement cycling doesn't have to inconvenience anyone, and in the main doesn't. Let's not pretend something different and thereby restrict the use of this fantastic machine.
[/quote]

The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101462"]
I didn't forget your comment. I also remember that it stalled then as well when we got to the unmarked question.
[/quote]

On the "unmarked" question, my view is that cyclists using these facilities almost certainly are causing peds distress (and didn't you have exactly that problem with an elderly gentleman?)

However unlike basic pavement cycling where the conflict is entirely the fault of the cyclists invading pedestrian space, in this case the fault is the councils'. If bad signage in an area they have determined is safe for shared use causes two reasonable groups of users to come into conflict the signage should be sorted it out.

As you can see you are wrong to represent me as saying "just because it's allowed that makes it ok". What I am saying is what I have always said, which is "it's ok when it's expected".

That is also my view on pavement cycling in Japan and Holland (though my experience of Dutch cyclists is that for preference they will be on a cyclepath or the road. I saw very little pavement cycling in Amsterdam other than the odd cheeky nip-over-the-pavement which I would condemn as selfish in the UK but as you note is accepted in Holland)

Incidentally, the reason that thread stalled is because I got bored correcting misrepresentation of my points. Which is exactly how I feel about this one and why this thread is about to go the same way

 

[brokenbetty]

[QUOTE 1101467"]
So, if the only problem is the unexpected, all that needs to be done is to change the attitude. Not the behaviour, just the attitude of the non-cyclist
[/quote]

Oh, is that all? And you think the best way to change the way pedestrians feel about cyclists is to ignore, belittle or contradict them?

Good luck with that.

 

[Bicycle]

I have no moral right to add my thoughts on this thread...

I never, ever EVER ride on the pavement, but...

Many years ago I lived in Mile End and had to collect a car from service near Eltham....

I was VERY SHORT OF TIME.... and I dare say it was VERY IMPORTANT that I collected the car that day (although probably it wasn't)

So...

I cycled through the Blackwall Tunnel to collect the car.

How I got though without becoming the radiator ornament for an artic I do not know.

That act of disgracefully dangerous cycling and my display of a complete disregard for the Laws of the Realm render any comment I have on the pavement issue utterly without value or credibility.

Having said that, I think the road is the place for bicycles and the pavement the place for pedestrians.

And since 1993 I have come to the conclusion that Motorway tunnels under the Thames are no place for bicycles either.