Pavement cyclists.

[classic33]

Because it is technicaly against the law does not automaticaly mean that it is wrong or that it shouldn't be challenged. Using the logic that it is against the law and therefor should not be done at all then all men, until recently would have had to practice their archery on a Sunday.

Little mistake on that one. See:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/united-kingdom
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29179

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

If the police are overstretched they're bound to prioritise offences, and in some areas maybe they don't do much about selfish cyclists. So what? It's still against the law. In any case, considerate people don't need to be told that it's illegal - they don't do it anyway because they are considerate. It really is like listening to a spoilt child.

And ill-informed statements made by an out-of-office politician who never stepped out of his chauffer-driven car are no longer relevant, if they ever were.

 

[Arfcollins]

In any case, considerate people don't need to be told that it's illegal - they don't do it anyway because they are considerate.

Mmm... Don't be too sure about this, Oldfashioned. I am both a considerate cyclist and a considerate motorist. I also cycle on the pavement sometimes when I judge that it is the best thing to do, illegal or not.

Picture 3 miles of single carriageway A-road (40mph) with the obligatory 2 foot wide piece of pink tarmac at the edge - the 'cycle-lane'. Imagine if you will the traffic at around 7am, fairly low volume so it is fast, doing 40. Listen to the sound of a skip lorry's wing mirror coming past your ear at a relative speed of around 30mph or, should you deviate slightly, listen to the sound of that mirror clouting your head. But on your left is an empty pavement. The average number of pedestrians at that time of the morning is 2 in those 3 miles, easy to considerately pass.

For me it is a no-brainer. In the evening when the traffic in my direction is heavier and slower and the number of pedestrians is much higher it is not necessary, sensible or considerate to cycle on the pavement.

 

[OldFashionedCyclist]

[QUOTE 1101518"]
It's nothing to do with prioritising offences, and no-one is disputing what the law says. What has happened is that those in power have taken a sensible approach to allow those who don't feel safe riding on-road to cycle responsibly on the pavement.

What it comes down oldbloke is that it doesn't matter what you think. Allowances have been made to enable more people to ride bikes, and that's fantastic. It's disappointing to find a cyclist so vehemently opposed to this, to the end that he won't allow himself to look objectively at the wider picture.

Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

If you've genuinely got a problem with this then I'd suggest that you attempt to drum up some support and start a campaign. It will be far more effective than doling out reception-year insults on a cycling forum.

Now, some deep breathing......
[/quote]

Spoken like a spoilt child.

Brokenbetty, Clandy and I (and a couple of others) have tried debating with you rationally, but you just can't do it, can you? Which is why Betty gave up on you, and why I am doing so as well.

18,000 posts…


Arfcollins: No, we were talking about pavement in cities, with pedestrians etc etc.

 

[mickle]

Spoken like a spoilt child.

Do you have to be so unpleasant?

 

[Bicycle]

I shouldn't write this... But I will.

This thread is addictively entertaining.

I have no view on this topic, but I could read all day the thoughts of those who do.

And for what it's worth I agree with everything everyone has written, to a lesser or greater extent.

Outstanding.

 

[mangaman]

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.

This is my experience.

A 5 year old pootling along a pavement learning to ride is fine.

The vast majority of pavement cyclists on my walk to work are cycling as fast as they would on a road - to cut a few minutes off their commute.

 

[Clandy]

This is my experience.

A 5 year old pootling along a pavement learning to ride is fine.

The vast majority of pavement cyclists on my walk to work are cycling as fast as they would on a road - to cut a few minutes off their commute.

Mine too. As anecdotal evidence is all it takes to convince 18,000 post boy, then he should now be convinced of the stupidity of adults cycling on the pavement.

 

[mangaman]

[QUOTE 1101518"]
It's nothing to do with prioritising offences, and no-one is disputing what the law says. What has happened is that those in power have taken a sensible approach to allow those who don't feel safe riding on-road to cycle responsibly on the pavement.

What it comes down oldbloke is that it doesn't matter what you think. Allowances have been made to enable more people to ride bikes, and that's fantastic. It's disappointing to find a cyclist so vehemently opposed to this, to the end that he won't allow himself to look objectively at the wider picture.

Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

If you've genuinely got a problem with this then I'd suggest that you attempt to drum up some support and start a campaign. It will be far more effective than doling out reception-year insults on a cycling forum.

Now, some deep breathing......
[/quote]

I haven't really followed this thread Mr P - but I'm surprised to see you taking this line.

I always thought you were a stickler for road safety - quite rightly.

I'll try to video my walk to work - there's about a 200 metre footpath which twists and turns and is very narrow. Every day I have to leap out of the way of some idiot on a bike barreling along it. I'll try to get dome phone footage - it's pure selfishness and corner cutting by commuting cyclists.

If it were cars - I'm sure you'd be one of the more vociferous opponents.

 

[Tynan]

all I'll say is that I'm regularly suprised by how intimidating a bike being ridden too fast on the pavement is

and how it isn't at all when it's done with consideration and care

simple as that for me

 

[mangaman]

[QUOTE 1101527"]
Maybe, given the efforts of a few to intentionally cloud the issue, it's worth me repeating what I said a long time ago (or it might just be because you haven't followed the thread). That is that I share the same concerns of anyone who takes issue with irresponsible, dangerous pavement cyclists.

That, and a whole lot of other stuff which I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to wade through.
[/quote]

As you say, I lost contact with this thread ages ago, sorry.

I agree it's about irresponsible pavement cyclists - although arguing pavement cycling is sort of OK at times is like arguing speeding in a car a tiny bit is OK at times when there's no-one looking.

I think the more we stay off the pavements the better we look as cyclists.

(I'm sure the thread has covered all this, so don't worry too much about replying! When I have a free few hours I'll read it.)

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1101531"]


There is also the other view that a bicycle is a unique form of transport and shouldn't be boxed into a category alongside other modes of transport which are entirely different. If it's seen as a road vehicle then it's naturally pushed onto the road and into conditions. And then it excludes certain groups because it's not open to all, and this shouldn't be the case.
[/quote]

Bicycles are, and always have been, road vehicles. It was cyclist groups who first lobbied for sealed roads. Most of us don't want to be confined to cycle routes, we want the freedom to roam anywhere we choose. If people insist on riding on pavements government will be forced into harsher restrictions on cycling.

 

[forwater]

Personally, with the way people drive around here, I'm not willing to risk my life just to make people happy. If I go to the store, I take the side-walk. On roads where there is no side-walk, I take the road.

I know a woman who was clipped by a passing vehicle and had her arm broken! Not to mention I've heard stories of people who were hit by cars... I have no desire to be dropped into that whole mess.

Atlanta is a bad city for cyclists. I consider my safety first. Perhaps once I've gotten up a bit of confidence around crazy people in cars, then I'll give riding in the road a shot. For now, though, the side-walk's the road for me...

edit: I would also add that in the past when I've been walking on the side-walk and a cyclist approaches from either direction, I just step off of the path into the grass for a moment and let them by. It's not that big of a deal, really, and it doesn't annoy me one bit. I understand their reasons.

 

[Clandy]

Personally, with the way people drive around here, I'm not willing to risk my life just to make people happy. If I go to the store, I take the side-walk. On roads where there is no side-walk, I take the road.

I know a woman who was clipped by a passing vehicle and had her arm broken! Not to mention I've heard stories of people who were hit by cars... I have no desire to be dropped into that whole mess.

Atlanta is a bad city for cyclists. I consider my safety first. Perhaps once I've gotten up a bit of confidence around crazy people in cars, then I'll give riding in the road a shot. For now, though, the side-walk's the road for me...

edit: I would also add that in the past when I've been walking on the side-walk and a cyclist approaches from either direction, I just step off of the path into the grass for a moment and let them by. It's not that big of a deal, really, and it doesn't annoy me one bit. I understand their reasons.

The road environment in the US is very different from the UK.

 

[Mark_Robson]

Bicycles are, and always have been, road vehicles. It was cyclist groups who first lobbied for sealed roads. Most of us don't want to be confined to cycle routes, we want the freedom to roam anywhere we choose. If people insist on riding on pavements government will be forced into harsher restrictions on cycling.

You seem to forget that many cycle routes use shared pavements where cyclists and peds mingle freely.
For the most part this works well and the only issues that I see on these routes are cyclists who travel too fast, weaving in and out of the peds who invariably walk in the cycle lane and the dog owners with those cartridge type dog leads that allow the dog the freedom to roam wherever it pleases.

It is far too easy just to say that all pavement cycling is illegal and therefore shouldn't be tolerated. Each case should be judged on it's own merits, that's what the law is doing so I would suggest that people here try to look at it objectively. I personally have zero tolerance for irresponsible or dangerous pavement cyclists and I totally agree that these people need to be dealt with but in my experience they are a minority.

All my cycling is done on road or if I'm using my hybrid for a leisurely ride along the coast with the family then I will use the shared pavements and cycle paths but because of this thread I made a note on my ride yesterday and I would say that seventy five percent of the cyclists that I encountered were riding on the pavement. So what should we do with these people? Do we force them onto the road and offer them a loan of a dog eared copy of Cyclecraft and tell them to get a backbone and get on with it or do we accept that they are a symptom of a greater problem that needs to be addressed?

To me there is no black and white answer to pavement cycling and I think that its disappointing that some posters feel that they have to resort to childish name calling to try and discredit Paul's argument.