Serious M.T.B. on local pavements.

[theclaud]

I'm puzzled by what exactly constitutes the 'seriousness' of these urban MTBers. Is Pontefract the new Valparaiso? There are a few gnarly descents in Swansea for the taking, but from my desk I mostly see blokes on cheap mtbs trundling up and down the pavement all day in a manner that can only be described as pedestrian (see what I did there?). On the other hand I'm slack-jawed in admiration and wonder at the skills of the young men on jump bikes in Castle Square. Anyway, this thread is full of the sort of people who would've liked the cops to win in the ET bike chase.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@Afnug Got pip at on that road the bit drops down before the short climb to the A1, would mind I must have been doing 23-25mph as its a slight decline and no more than a meter or so, I use to ride that bit quite often, as I would go from here to Darrington than to E. Hardwick.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@theclaud I think the three ( I presume male, though not forced to be) I saw coming down the said hill, with lights T6 bright light stuck on there helmets and from what I could make out not some B.S.O. of a M.T.B. either, the others I refer to also are more kitted out in serious equipment than your average rider on a M.T.B.

 

[cd365]

Not around here. Road bikes are almost always on roads; always have been. MTBs are nearly always on pavements. The most stupid example was a really snowy day when the pavements were covered in slush and ice and crap, the roads clear if damp because of traffic melting the snow - and I still overtook a bloke who was riding his MTB over the slippy pavement next to a completely clear road. I'm given to wonder if most of the people around here actually know where cyclists are meant to ride.

That is my experience as well, I very rarely see a road bike on the pavement but most MTBs are on the pavement.

 

[User482]

So long as pavement cyclists slow right down and give way to pedestrians, I fail to see what there is to get worked up about.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

So long as pavement cyclists slow right down and give way to pedestrians, and fail to see what there is to get worked up about.

Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath,
It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.

 

[User482]

Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath,
It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.

It's illegal for young children to cycle on the pavement. Do you think they should all be forced onto the road?

 

[Karlt]

Ok I will put it another way, the more car drivers see cyclists on the pavements the more the will expect us to flout other rules and use as it an argument for segregation, and as we know the motorist movement has more support than the cyclist one, and I think we all know where segregation leads. I for one have had several comments (to say the least) regarding being on a road even where there is no footpath,
It is this simple in the U.K. it is against the law to ride on footpaths, this actually extends to footpaths across moors ect. unless a right of way has vehicle access you cant ride it on a bike (though cyclist are allowed to use bridleways, which answers the towpath question earlier), I used to do some green lanes in the Huddersfield area in the 90's and you had to know which had vehicle access and those that didn't. Though I think there may have been some reclassification of byways since then.
It seems to me that cyclists believe they can do no wrong.

In principle I agree, but there are some caveats.

1. The existence of shared use facilities. These indicate that either (a) a bit of white paint and a blue sign suddenly either negates the problem or (b) there was never any real problem in the first place. There is of course a third option, (c) that there is still a problem and it still exists on shared use facilities, but that implies that shared use facilities are a Bad Thing which isn't a popular view.

2. Young children as mentioned; there is a popular belief that bikes with wheels under 20" are considered toys and are exempt, but this is as far as I can see nonsense. It's virtually impossible for a child under 16 to be prosecuted for the offence because it's dealt with by fixed penalty which cannot be applied under that age, but it's still illegal.

3. It doesn't extend to footpaths that are not footways on the highway. Such footpaths do not create a right of way by bicycle, but someone using one is not committing an offence but rather a civil tort, trespass, and as such could not be prosecuted, only sued if damage resulted, or ordered off by the landowner or his agents.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

@User482 again the O.P. is about serious M.T.B. this wasn't meant as a debate as to the rights and wrongs of all cyclists, I think as adults we should use disgression regarding those under 10 as they can't be guilty of any offence (well normally), so you have to aim that question a bit higher those over 10,
I could ride local roads when I was young, and don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's, I rode my Chopper from New Miles to Marple about that time, about 10 miles., twisty country lanes, at 14 I rode from New Miles to Hazel Grove (and back) down the A6, all ways was a busy road that one.
If my memory serves me right in real terms road fatalities have actually come down since then.
Image yourself an older person not steady on your feet but still capable of getting to the local shops, and you see a youth tonking in down the pavement towards you, how you going to feel......

 

[User482]

@User482 again the O.P. is about serious M.T.B. this wasn't meant as a debate as to the rights and wrongs of all cyclists, I think as adults we should use disgression regarding those under 10 as they can't be guilty of any offence (well normally), so you have to aim that question a bit higher those over 10,
I could ride local roads when I was young, and don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's, I rode my Chopper from New Miles to Marple about that time, about 10 miles., twisty country lanes, at 14 I rode from New Miles to Hazel Grove (and back) down the A6, all ways was a busy road that one.
If my memory serves me right in real terms road fatalities have actually come down since then.
Image yourself an older person not steady on your feet but still capable of getting to the local shops, and you see a youth tonking in down the pavement towards you, how you going to feel......

It is illegal for children under ten to cycle on the pavement, and they can be stopped by a police officer for doing so. You appear to be suggesting a common-sense approach, whereby some discretion is applied in law-enforcement in return for some courtesy by the cyclist. The Home Office sees it the same way.

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

 

[Nigelnaturist]

In principle I agree, but there are some caveats.

1. The existence of shared use facilities. These indicate that either (a) a bit of white paint and a blue sign suddenly either negates the problem or (b) there was never any real problem in the first place. There is of course a third option, (c) that there is still a problem and it still exists on shared use facilities, but that implies that shared use facilities are a Bad Thing which isn't a popular view.
A road is a shared right of way and isn't popular from many a motorists point of view

2. Young children as mentioned; there is a popular belief that bikes with wheels under 20" are considered toys and are exempt, but this is as far as I can see nonsense. It's virtually impossible for a child under 16 to be prosecuted for the offence because it's dealt with by fixed penalty which cannot be applied under that age, but it's still illegal.
See previous post

3. It doesn't extend to footpaths that are not footways on the highway. Such footpaths do not create a right of way by bicycle, but someone using one is not committing an offence but rather a civil tort, trespass, and as such could not be prosecuted, only sued if damage resulted, or ordered off by the landowner or his agents.

a footpath is for the sole use of people on foot, use of any other vehicle is illegal, I am not on about paths on private land but public right of ways.
A right of way is deemed to be one from an historical point of (Drovers roads ect) or by legislation, they all have categories, footpath, bridleway, B.O.A.T. (by open to all traffic), but like I said these may have changed, there were one or two others I think, but the principle is the same, and for reference all these are open to pedestrians expect motorways or where there are exceptions as in certain dual carriageways usually urban ones.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

It is illegal for children under ten to cycle on the pavement, and they can be stopped by a police officer for doing so. You appear to be suggesting a common-sense approach, whereby some discretion is applied in law-enforcement in return for some courtesy by the cyclist. The Home Office sees it the same way.

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Didn't stop the officer in Nottingham though, which I actually found appalling.
However a child can not be done in normal circumstance, due to being under the age of criminal consent 10 (not sure thats the terminology) unless I have missed something in my hibernation from the world.

 

[User482]

Didn't stop the officer in Nottingham though, which I actually found appalling.
However a child can not be done in normal circumstance, due to being under the age of criminal consent 10 (not sure thats the terminology) unless I have missed something in my hibernation from the world.

There have been several successful challenges against fines, on the basis of the police not applying Home Office guidance. The guidance is - in my view - perfectly sensible, as it amounts to little more than "don't be a dick and the police will leave you alone".

 

[Hip Priest]

don't give this c*** about less traffic, there was enough traffic about in the mid 70's.....

But there is unquestionably more traffic now. Significantly so. You can't dismiss an incontestable fact as 'cr*p'.

 

[jefmcg]

Cyclists are the least of the problems where i ride, its dickheads and chavs riding unregistered probably stolen quads on pavements and trails that are a pain. Luckily a couple of weeks ago one got stuck under the front of a bus, causing serious injury to aforementioned chavs.

How is this ok, celebrating serious injury of someone because you think he belongs to a group you despise? How is this any different from cheering on that we see occasionally when a cyclist is hit or killed?

Shame on you, @howard2107 for posting this, and shame on @Globalti, @i hate hills, @Accy cyclist and @Drago for liking it.

And double shame on @Richard A Thackeray ....

You mean, sadly, only serious injury