Serious M.T.B. on local pavements.

[Karlt]

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.

I know. On a public footpath, a right of way, as opposed to a footway by a road, cycling is illegal under the civil law, as opposed to the criminal law. The difference is that you can be fined for riding on a footway (i.e.a pavement by a road); you cannot be fined for riding on a public footpath because no criminal offence is committed - only a civil tort of trespass.

 

[Hip Priest]

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 ....

Yeah, I though that was a bit unpleasant too. Kudos for speaking up.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

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

However in real terms fatalities are down. more traffic about the same fatalities about 3,000 I think it was, however this is no solace if on a bike or a pedestrian as these figures haven't really fallen.

However most children wouldn't be riding down A roads like I did, but more in the confines of the immediate neighbourhood, which on the whole are still relatively save, apart from the young kids on bikes with no sense riding across the road without looking to get from one pavement to the other, and if a child has the ability to ride down A roads, they will have been taught road skills and sense by like minded people.
I knew the highway code inside out when I was 12, passed my HGV in 2004 with only 2 minors and one of the highest scores on the theory test to go through the Gillingham test centre at the time.
Its us as cyclist that make us safe not others, read the road understand what is going on, expect that car thats just over took you to take that next left, give yourself space in which to manoeuvre (this applies no matter what you ride/drive), us all the senses you have to stay alert and safe, and remember this no matter what we do life is a risk, we choose to ride on the roads, and allow our children to do what they do, its is our responsibility to ensure they have the skills to stay safe, which I have seen around here from time to time, parents riding as out riders so the younger ones learnt he road.
I reiterate this issue in this statement, per 100 I see more bad riding than I see bad/dangerous driving, I would go as far to say that in a 100 cyclists and 1,000 motorists, I still see more bad cyclists.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I know. On a public footpath, a right of way, as opposed to a footway by a road, cycling is illegal under the civil law, as opposed to the criminal law. The difference is that you can be fined for riding on a footway (i.e.a pavement by a road); you cannot be fined for riding on a public footpath because no criminal offence is committed - only a civil tort of trespass.

I would need to look at this further to be able to answer with any thing more definitive.

 

[glenn forger]

However most children wouldn't be riding down A roads like I did, but more in the confines of the immediate neighbourhood, which on the whole are still relatively save, apart from the young kids on bikes with no sense riding across the road without looking to get from one pavement to the other

What proportion of child fatalities are you blaming the child for?

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Yes, maybe fair does!!


However, there doesn't appear to be a 'tongue in cheek smilie'

Wrong choice of words perhaps, but if they'd not stolen it, & been (no doubt) riding it like buffoons, they'd not have buried it in a Bus (also traumatising the driver, & any pasengers who saw it)

 

[glenn forger]

I would go as far to say that in a 100 cyclists and 1,000 motorists, I still see more bad cyclists.

Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.

There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc

 

[i hate hills]

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 ....

Just to clarify . My "LIKE" was for the first sentence , not the second sentence. I have been menaced by chavs / neds before while out cycling and was in agreement with the posters first sentence. Sorry for any confusion and happy to clear that up for you.

 

[i hate hills]

Yeah, I though that was a bit unpleasant too. Kudos for speaking up.

Just to clarify my "LIKE " was for the first sentence , not the second sentence. I have been menaced by chavs / neds while out cycling and was in agreement with the posters first sentence . Sorry for any confusion and happy to clear that up for you.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

What proportion of child fatalities are you blaming the child for?

I didn't say that, what I implied is that youngsters have no sense and put themselves at risk.
The responsibility is on the drive to drive in such away they can stop in the distance they can under all eventualities.

Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.

There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc

Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time, the rest can also be applied to cyclists to some degree though in many cases not a legal requirement.
1.2 million cars uninsured out of what 20 million 25 so lets say 1 in 25, suspect thats quite a bit higher with bikes, again not a legal requirement but if you cause an accident your just as liable. Excluding the idiots that drive prior to a test or training, drivers have to have a attained a certain level of skill, that again is not a legal requirement on bike, maybe if it was people would not have the same fears on the road as they would be trained to ride in such conditions.
However at the end of the day we as cyclists if we get our judgement wrong are likely to come off worst.

 

[i hate hills]

I didn't say that, what I implied is that youngsters have no sense and put themselves at risk.
The responsibility is on the drive to drive in such away they can stop in the distance they can under all eventualities.

Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time, the rest can also be applied to cyclists to some degree though in many cases not a legal requirement.
1.2 million cars uninsured out of what 20 million 25 so lets say 1 in 25, suspect thats quite a bit higher with bikes, again not a legal requirement but if you cause an accident your just as liable. Excluding the idiots that drive prior to a test or training, drivers have to have a attained a certain level of skill, that again is not a legal requirement on bike, maybe if it was people would not have the same fears on the road as they would be trained to ride in such conditions.
However at the end of the day we as cyclists if we get our judgement wrong are likely to come off worst.

You make some very valid points there . Cant make up my mind what side of the disscussion to come down on so have replied to you rather than liked it

 

[i hate hills]

Then you are bringing your bias to the debate.

There are a million regular cyclist commuters in this country. There are 1.2 million uninsured cars on the road. So law-breaking by drivers is much larger than any law-breaking among cyclists BEFORE YOU EVEN INCLUDE speeding, drink driving, drugged driving, driving with no MOT, driving with poor eyesight, driving while using a mobile etc etc etc

You make some good points too. Not sure where i stand on things . So replied to you rather than liked your post.

 

[glenn forger]

I liked the bit where he compared drunk driving with cycling while having a fag.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I liked the bit where he compared drunk driving with cycling while having a fag.

You missed the bit about drink.
Thats the funny think about extracting quotes, and I can tell you a few things about drink driving to as I was guilty of it, fortunately I never hurt anyone, this how ever is not the place for ways and wherefores, however I was punished heavily and quite rightly so, so don't think drivers get away with it, also no-insurance (however that is very complex as it involves the disappearance of my mother who was never seen again, but basically my mum said the car was insured as a youngster 20 ish you believe your parents ect ect.... doesn't make it right however), I did keep a clean license for 20 years after that and driving up to 60-70,000 miles a year, so I actually have a very good understanding of the roads and how people are and behave on them.
This was meant as a simple question as to why what appear to be serious M.T.Bikers riding on pavements, not the rights and wrongs of everyone on the road pavements ect.

 

[theclaud]

Ok lets bring into the equation drunk in charge of a bicycle, riding no handed drinking smoking on a mobile and on a pavement yes I saw a guy do all that at the same time.

I'm almost tempted to take up smoking and pavement-cycling so that I can pull off the whole shebang at once.