Riding on the pavement to avoid lights

[marzjennings]

I take the point about safety... but if not in a rush, why not get off and walk, and stay within the law ?

Like this?

 

[marzjennings]

I have to say, cycling in the USA is "different".
I've only had a weekend of it - and that was in and around Irvine, CA - supposedly one of the most bike friendly cities around, and frankly I didnt enjoy it overmuch even then.

In the US a bike friendly city is one where drivers are not actually out to run you down or shoot you.

 

[FatherCrowe]

I squirted my water bottle at a young fella on Monday afternoon doing just this. He looked shocked and then a bit ashamed as I explained that drivers, walkers and other riders all got annoyed at his riding style plus he was making life harder for cyclists in general. It won't make him stop and he will continue to do it until either a copper catches him or he has a near miss at a set of lghts somewhere.
Im a firm believer that jumping a red light should be punished much more severely than it is and inconsiderate road users should be punished much more so people start realising that a bit of consideration and a bit of proffessionalism on our roads would make peoples lives much more enjoyable.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[theclaud]

Red lights mean STOP ...simple. What makes us different from car drivers using the road?...nothing, so we should adhere to all traffic lights /signs/whatever.

The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to write it. Bicycles and cars are, er... different.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I take the point about safety... but if not in a rush, why not get off and walk, and stay within the law ?

When you've had an abortive journey (barred from Lewisham Station, barred from Victoria Station) of 21 miles across London and back with two young foreigners new to the road, and after already regularly dismounting at difficult and potentially dangerous junctions, I got the strong impression that we were being royally messed around, and cycling with due care and attention to pedestrians posed no danger. We got off because of dangers posed by other vehicles but not because we might have endangered or inconvenienced anyone.

We were only there because the quieter, more direct route a few yards earlier was one-way. Was it one way because it was too narrow to safely support two-way cycle traffic? No, it is one-way because it's not wide enough for 2-way motor traffic. And in any case, cycling off road there for safety reasons was within the Boateng let-it-go remit.

Looking at the map on google (linked above), it turns out that it's not signed as open to cycling but as the only prohibited traffic sign (motorbikes and cars) is not visible from the direction we approached, I didn't know that at the time. A city friendly to cyclists would have let us on the train so we wouldn't have been there in the first place. A city friendly to cyclists would not have closed off roads to cyclists because other vehicles are too large for it. A city friendly to cyclists would not have placed the sign in an invisible position.

I regard myself as being in some small way as being an ambassador for cycling, not as an ambassador for laws, road systems and incompetent signing that disregard cyclists' safety.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Depends on the lights IMO. I have ridden trough a set of temporary rural ones that remained red as long as I was there, but gave the opposing direction 3 phases.

Normal urban/city lights that are set to change frequently - wait yer turn.

 

[PpPete]

Being messed about by the Local Authority or the 'lympics or whatever caused your problems would not be regarded as a defence in a court of law.
Don't get me wrong - I have some sympathy with the why...
But if you regard yourself as being an ambassador for cycling then shouldn't you be obeying the law 100% of the time?

Put yourself in the mindset of one of those pedestrians - to whom you very careful to be posing no danger.
And let's suppose it's one from the shallow end of the gene pool ....
"Oh there go some more cyclists - law unto themselves, riding on pavements, jumping red lights, don't pay road tax etc etc. Why should I respect them when I am in my BMW ?"

 

[lordloveaduck]

[QUOTE 1965056, member: 45"]The police are also permitted to exceed the speed limit.

As part of the role of policing is to engage with the public, tim pavement is an appropriate place to ride. The PCSOs on bikes in Brum spend a lot of their time talking to kids, and couldn't if they were restricted to the road.[/quote]

The Bike cops are not talkin, there just crusing the area where i live or riding straight into gregs then tesco.

 

[MrJamie]

The Bike cops are not talkin, there just crusing the area where i live or riding straight into gregs then tesco.

I see the same thing, although they only seem to patrol when the weathers nice too. Theyre so slow i dont mind their pavement cycling, but probably 80% of the time i see them theyre pushing their bikes along the shared use paths with no obvious mechanical problem.

 

[Francesca]

No

The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to write it. Bicycles and cars are, er... different.

yes ...they are different, but if you are on a road on whatever "mode" of transport - you adhere to the signs , for your own safety and everybody elses..not embarrasssing to write this.

 

[theclaud]

No

yes ...they are different, but if you are on a road on whatever "mode" of transport - you adhere to the signs , for your own safety and everybody elses..not embarrasssing to write this.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? If two things are different, why treat them as though they are the same, rather than in a way that acknowledges their differences? And since we're talking about difference, not all bicycles are the same either. I would not generally hop up and down pavements on a road bike, whether to avoid red lights or for any other reason, but I sure as hell would if I rode a bmx. Unfortunately I'd look silly on a bmx. I almost always wait at lights and I almost always ride exclusively on the road... but even as I type that I feel slightly dishonest, because I know that there's a short stretch of idiotically-designed city centre that oft features on my commute where I routinely break both those conditions because I happen to think that the design invites it. Except that, to complicate it further, sometimes I'm not actually breaking the rules, even though the rules make no difference to whether the particular act is irresponsible or not, for the simple reason that some council bod has allowed cycling on a bit of pavement. Etc etc etc. Meantime I sit in my office on the High Street and watch a lot of grown men on scruffy mtbs ride along the pavement to and from the station all day, occasionally causing minor irritation but mostly just looking a bit silly in my eyes because there is a perfectly good road adjacent. No one seems to get twisty-knickered about it. I'm interested in why it upsets people (people who are supposed to like bicycles) that the bicycle is such a versatile and changeable mode: more like motor vehicles in one context; more closely allied to pedestrians in another. Surely this is one of the joys of the bicycle?

 

[summerdays]

Saw someone cycling on the pavement beside the A38 yesterday ... but what caught my eye was the fact he was clipping in on a road bike!!!

 

[User482]

I often walk on the pavement to avoid lights. Sometimes I skate on the pavement to avoid lights. I tend not to do the same on a bike very much at all, but I haven't seen any good reason why cycling at walking pace is bad but walking while pushing a bike is OK.

Good god, you're not going to get very far by having a balanced opinion...

Anyway, the Home Office agree with you: I believe they issued guidance that says pavement cyclists should only be punished if they are cycling in a way that endangers pedestrians, which seems a perfectly reasonable position to me.

Generally, I don't jump lights or ride on the pavement, but think of this example, naysayers. In order to take my daughter to nursery, I can either make two right turns onto and off a very busy main road, or I can cycle slowly along the adjacent (wide) pavement for a short stretch. I don't feel any need to apologise...

 

[Francesca]

Well, that's just it, isn't it? If two things are different, why treat them as though they are the same, rather than in a way that acknowledges their differences? And since we're talking about difference, not all bicycles are the same either. I would not generally hop up and down pavements on a road bike, whether to avoid red lights or for any other reason, but I sure as hell would if I rode a bmx. Unfortunately I'd look silly on a bmx. I almost always wait at lights and I almost always ride exclusively on the road... but even as I type that I feel slightly dishonest, because I know that there's a short stretch of idiotically-designed city centre that oft features on my commute where I routinely break both those conditions because I happen to think that the design invites it. Except that, to complicate it further, sometimes I'm not actually breaking the rules, even though the rules make no difference to whether the particular act is irresponsible or not, for the simple reason that some council bod has allowed cycling on a bit of pavement. Etc etc etc. Meantime I sit in my office on the High Street and watch a lot of grown men on scruffy mtbs ride along the pavement to and from the station all day, occasionally causing minor irritation but mostly just looking a bit silly in my eyes because there is a perfectly good road adjacent. No one seems to get twisty-knickered about it. I'm interested in why it upsets people (people who are supposed to like bicycles) that the bicycle is such a versatile and changeable mode: more like motor vehicles in one context; more closely allied to pedestrians in another. Surely this is one of the joys of the bicycle?

Great, thats your opinion and you are entitled to express it.I however abide by the signs, lights whatever - my choice , I ride a MTB on and off road. If somebody rides the pavement , thats their choice..horses for courses here....

 

[PaulB]

It's not the pavement riding to avoid lights that I do but something else I do that produces apoplexy in the car drivers offended by my actions.

When there are those temporary lights, I see no reason whatsoever to stop if it's clear there's nothing coming the other way. Even if something should come at you, our bikes are so narrow as to easily evade them by going the other side of the cones. But drivers who sit patiently most of the time are doing so simply because the light is on red! When it's blatantly obvious the road on the other side of the lights is clear for hundreds of metres, they still sit there, programmed to obey, simply because they have been told to. I've been screamed at, driven at, roared past by boy-racers simply because I took the sensible option of not being over-regulated when there was no reason to do so.