Sidewalk Cyclists Harassed

[Alex321]

It is an interesting and polarising topic in the community...

If riding on pavements is so dangerous why are some shared use? There doesn't appear to be any correlation with width of path, residential build up as to whether they are granted 'shared use'... Here are examples:

View attachment 616509
View attachment 616510
View attachment 616511

Im not campaigning for pavement riding or advocating breaking laws but interested to know if there are any guidelines local authorities use to determine if shared use will be safe to use? Is there an element of accepted risk?

As a cyclist, none of those three examples are ones I would be prepared to use.

How on earth the local authorities thought those might be OK is beyond me.

The ones on my commute in Cardiff are much better than that, all with plenty of width and visibility.

 

[alex_cycles]

I think it depends to a large extent on the nature of your journey and your attitude.
If I'm on a road bike trying to go fairly quickly you will not see me on a pedestrian path at all, shared or otherwise. Too dangerous for all concerned.

If I'm bimbling to or from town on hybrid or MTB, I will nip onto the pavement to let cars go by (if it's safe). And if people are present on a pavement I'm already on, I will slow or stop or manoeuvre so we can safely pass each other.

It hinges on "consideration for the safety and convenience of others". If I'm coming up behind someone I'll generally try to let them know I'm coming so they don't crap themself as I pass.

And it's why a "one size fits all" law isn't really practical. Pretty much all the paths I would use are dual use, but I generally prefer to be on the road. (Don't get me started on dog walkers with headphones and "extendible leads of death", though).

 

[Arrowfoot]

A great many pavements around the Lancaster area were not 'designed' as shared use paths, but a bit of white paint and a few blue signs added in the last 10 or 20 years has 'designated' them to be shared use. The day when parents have to restrain toddlers to one side came many years ago.

Poor choice by voters electing the wrong council members comes with a price. Many councils would not be silly or short sighted as to turn something as shared if it is not fit for purpose. Its a separate issue.

 

[purpan]

It really is a different culture over there, even in a reasonably provincial area of New England like Danvers and Peabody when I was there 2yrs ago, if walking and crossing the street I was looked at like a 3 headed alien!

There was a line in a Martin Amis novel years go - something like "The only way to get to the other side of the road in L.A. is to be born there."

 

[MontyVeda]

I've mentioned this here on the forum a few times in the past,,,,

some people just have an irrational dislike of cyclists... maybe they read The Mail. I wouldn't worry too much about over dramatic reactions to the perfectly sensible use of a pavement.

 

[mustang1]

We're not supposed to. Not enough Police to actually stop anyone though. We do have some shared 'sidewalks'

I feel sorry for pedestrians on some sidewalks. I know of several where there was a perfectly nice sidewalk which then got a white line down the middle, one side for peds, the other for cyclists. But the ped zone is not wide enough to walk two abreast and have a conversation. Fine, we've got to make compromises sometimes, but on these roads, the traffic volume is very low, and it's a 30mph zone. It seems some of these (maybe even most) bike lanes are there just to tick a few boxes with the council.

To the OP's question, it depends how crowded the sidewalks are and how wrecklessly the cyclists ride; they gotta slow down.

 

[I like Skol]

There was a line in a Martin Amis novel years go - something like "The only way to get to the other side of the road in L.A. is to be born there."

I stupidly walked from my hotel to a shopping Mall one evening after my training course had finished for the day. I got yelled at by a motorist while I crossed the road as the lights were on red and the traffic stopped. The driver in the queue for the red light actually opened their window and hollered at me for crossing there
I recounted my tale to my instructor the next morning and when I said where it was she said "Oh my, you crossed there?" Then she thought about it a bit and added " there's a pedestrian crossing a few blocks up..... but they took that out a couple of years ago...... Hmmmm, there is actually NO way to walk to the mall!"

Honestly, they are so totally car-centric that they don't even see walking as an option! The planet is royally screwed

 

[Milkfloat]

Just because a strip of tarmac has white line on it does not give any cyclist the excuse to mow down a pedestrian. The pedestrian is quite free to wander where they like, the cyclist must always slow down/give way.

 

[CharleyFarley]

Some folks are hard against riding a bike on the sidewalk. I'm fortunate to not live in a city with crowded sidewalks; I wouldn't ride on such a sidewalk. You would have to see the county where I ride. In the space of about 20 miles I'd see perhaps four or five pedestrians, and there's plenty of room for both of us. You'd also see how foolish it is to ride in the road among the high-speed traffic when there's an empty sidewalk. I can't speak for the whole of Florida but if sidewalk-riding was a problem, the state wouldn't allow us to ride on them. It's understood that forcing us to ride in the traffic would lead to many cyclist deaths. Better to bump into a pedestrian than to be mowed down by an idiot on a cell phone. And, incidentally, it's known that 40% of Florida drivers have no car insurance; that's why they hit and run.

 

[CharleyFarley]

While its relatively harmless compared to loons breaking the law in cars, it is still breaking the law...

It's only breaking the law in places that don't allow sidewalk riding; it's not breaking Florida law. Only an idiot would force us into the roads. That would be the day I'd give up riding.

 

[MontyVeda]

Just because a strip of tarmac has white line on it does not give any cyclist the excuse to mow down a pedestrian. The pedestrian is quite free to wander where they like, the cyclist must always slow down/give way.

I don't think anybody is claiming that

 

[Milkfloat]

I don't think anybody is claiming that

No, but you did say that the day when parents had to restrain their toddlers had already come - that should not be the case if people are cycling considerately and legally.

 

[postman]

So they thought they were above the law! New York is a drivers' hell, anyway.

We had five days in New York two years ago.It's an asylum,so busy.Rush rush rush shove.Don't talk to me about Times Square what is the big deal.

 

[MontyVeda]

No, but you did say that the day when parents had to restrain their toddlers had already come - that should not be the case if people are cycling considerately and legally.

I've had a pedestrian mime a crucifixion against a wall on a pavement ten foot wide so i could slowly trundle past... sometimes people over react for no reason.

And toddlers are about two years old and in the very early stages of walking... their parents should be ready to restrain them at all times. Or are we really talking about children?

 

[steveindenmark]

I live in Denmark and we have one of the best cycling infrastructures in the world. That includes great cycle paths.