Should cycling be allowed on the pavement?

[jefmcg]

There is an underlying assumption that cycling on the pavement is safer. Do we know this is true? You are much more vulnerable at side streets and driveways than you would be on the road.

I know of at least 3 deaths of pavement cyclists, probably all doing so legally.

1. There was an 11 year old class mate of my brother who was knocked down by a car backing out of a driveway while delivering papers.
2. When I was working on the A4 in west London, a rider opposite my office was knocked off the shared path onto the carriageway by a delivery driver who didn't bother to look. A second vehicle finished the job.
3. Most recently, a cyclist was knocked and killed, again on a shared path, and apparently it was entirely the cyclists because he failed to notice that one of the vehicles speeding towards over his right shoulder was indicating - if indeed it was.

Due to the above I am very reluctant to use a shared pavement, unless there are very few crossings. There is one near my home that I use occasionally and this caution has twice stopped me colliding with reversing car, and I've see another rider nearly hit by a turning delivery van.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

A simple tactic for successful pavement cycling...

Slow the chuff down and give way to everyone else, and be prepared to stop at every driveway and side road and blind corner. Which is easy if you slow the chuff down in the first place.

 

[chriswoody]

It's funny reading all of this and reflecting on what a complete mess cycling provision is in Britain. Here in my corner of Northern Germany pavement cycling is perfectly normal and allowed. For the most part it's segregated and there are different paving stones and signage used to denote which half is for the Pedestrians and which for the Cyclists. Your also expressly forbidden from crossing into the wrong half.

Where the pavements are too narrow for a designated cycle lane, then bikes are either directed onto bikes lanes on the road, or signs will denote that you can share the pavement with the Pedestrians.

The real key difference here, that also answers jefmcg's point above is that the law is very clear in Germany. Pedestrians have absolute right of way, followed by bikes followed by motorised transport. So you HAVE to give way to what ever is below you in the order. So if you hit a pedestrian with a bike, you'll have the full weight of the law fall on you. Same if a car hit's a bike, so in the point raised above, bikes riding on the pavement will sail across side roads without stopping or even looking, safe in the knowledge that car drivers will be going out of their way to look for cyclists and pedestrians doing just that, and giving way to them.

It all sounds a little crazy, but it works beautifully and everyone tends to get along just fine without hitting or antagonising each other. Of course the German psyche of always obeying the rules no matter what, does help a lot here too!

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 4649059, member: 45"]"safe" isn't an absolute, its a value of risk.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously I meant "safer". Fixed above.

I think you are missing the point I am making. I am not saying absolutely that cycling on the pavement is more dangerous. I am challenging the assumption in almost every post in this thread that it is safer than the road. Do we know this is true?

1) Terrible event. Isn't that an indication that all pavement use should be banned?

No, but I bet his parents were happy that he was on the footpath rather than the roadway. I bet they thought it was safer.

2) Number of cyclists killed on the roads v number of cyclists killed on shared use paths?

I don't know. That is the question I am asking. Certainly around here, most cyclists are on the roads, not the shared paths, so these two deaths (the one below) within a couple of miles of my home seem disproportionate. They may not be, but it seems so.

3) That was a death on the road, wasn't it?

He was on shared facility that crossed a road. A route has to be safe at junctions to be safe.

Again, I am not assuming that riding on the pavement is more dangerous, I am challenging the almost universal assumption that it is safer.

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 4649103, member: 45"]I don't think there's a universal assumption that pavement cycling is always safer, but that it generally is.[/QUOTE]
Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?

Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.

 

[Sandra6]

In principal I don't agree with cycling on the pavement -beyond the age of 12 at any rate - but there are times when even I do it.
Given the choice of sitting behind a line of non moving traffic, approaching a rab, filtering not an option, or taking the pavement for a minute so I can keep moving, I choose the pavement - but that stretch of pavement so rarely has any people using it I don't see it as a problem. I wouldn't choose to cycle all the way on the pavement though.
The problem with saying it's ok for "considerate cyclists" is that there isn't anyone to govern the consideration. Once it becomes acceptable to cycle along the path then more people will do it, many without consideration and I for one don't want to be jumping out of the way of bikes as I'm walking to the shop.

 

[PK99]

In my direct experience from four years ago you are wrong. "Cyclists as a group are not recognised as a community and therefore their collective views on community policing priorities cannot be considered."

I think that is correct. At a Little Holland proposal meeting a year or so ago, there were several different cycling types identifiable.

The commuter, wanting fast main road commuting routes through the borough into central london

The local mum, wanting safe back road, car free routes to the shops.

The sports cyclist wanting a clear run out of the suburbs into Surrey.

The leisure cyclist wanting access to Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park.

All with distinct and sometimes conflicting requirements and demands.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think that is correct. At a Little Holland proposal meeting a year or so ago, there were several different cycling types identifiable.

The commuter, wanting fast main road commuting routes through the borough into central london

The local mum, wanting safe back road, car free routes to the shops.

The sports cyclist wanting a clear run out of the suburbs into Surrey.

The leisure cyclist wanting access to Wimbledon Common and Richmond Park.

All with distinct and sometimes conflicting requirements and demands.

Which is why I often say, in here, cycling- and cyclist-wise there is no "us".

I can even be the commuter, the shopper, the sports person and the leisure rider, several times a week.

Though I have not yet been any of them yet this year. #ohtheshame.

 

[Ajax Bay]

the German psyche of always obeying the rules no matter what, does help a lot here too!

And then making sensible rules and communicating them, with a light touch of enforcement (given the psyche quoted).

 

[ufkacbln]

Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?

Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.

Which goes back to the "Boateng" advice

Deal with the situation at the time, make an informed decision at the time and then either let them go, have a word, or issue a ticket as appropriate

Classic example near us with a new section of Dual Carriageway and a poor roundabout

Do we need to wait 5 years, gather statistics and evidence, or simply apply the Bosteng criteria

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Is it though? Is it generally safer? Do you have figures to back that up?

Or is it like riding in the gutter, or in the door zone? Feels safer, but actually puts you in more danger.

Generally try this test.

Find a busy road with a pavement alongside it.
Walk along said pavement for 500m and note how many times you get hit by a car or abused by a driver
Now return to the start.
Walk into the road, start walking along the road for 500m and note how long you survive for. I'll wager you won't get 20 metres.

 

[chriswoody]

And then making sensible rules and communicating them, with a light touch of enforcement (given the psyche quoted).

True enough, I took a sneaky shortcut through what I thought was a virtually empty pedestrian area last year. There's a prominent sign at the start to remind cyclists not to use it at that time of day, so I was blatantly in the wrong.

I never saw the Policeman until he stopped me and fined me 15 euros on the spot. Not a massive fine, but it's enough to give you a gentle reminder of the rules.

 

[User16625]

providing the 'pavement' cyclist isn't being a nobber, there's no problem.

As far as I understand it, the police are advised not to tackle pavement cyclists unless they're being reckless or causing a nuisance to pedestrians. It's a sensible approach.

Sensible approach, police!? Yeah rite. Expecting that is a bit like telling my dog not to eat my steak. The only reason they dont dole out fines to dodgy cyclers is because they are already doing it to people who dont stick rigidly and religiously to arbitrary speed limits.

 

[MontyVeda]

Sensible approach, police!? Yeah rite. Expecting that is a bit like telling my dog not to eat my steak. The only reason they dont dole out fines to dodgy cyclers is because they are already doing it to people who dont stick rigidly and religiously to arbitrary speed limits.

Wrong. The whys and wherefores have been explained up thread... did you read them?

 

[mjr]

Despite all this sensibleness I regularly despair of drivers doing crazy things when I am on the road.

I would be delighted if they stuck to doing them on the road and didn't keep doing crazy things on the pavement and cycle tracks!