Southampton cyclists beware! (pavements)

[Riverman]

Spotted this in Southampton today in the Shirley district. What gets to me is the sheer width of the pavement from the top to the bottom of shirley. I don't know any other part of Southampton with pavements this wide. No cycle paths in sight either...

Also spot the cycle parking bit. I'd discourage everyone from cycling on the pavement, however I think in Shirley it's relatively safe for both pedestrians and cyclists and everyone seems to do it. Where ever I looked there were cyclists.

There are plenty of places in Southampton where it really is dangerous to cycle on the pavements but there are no such signs.

 

[thomas]

pfft, they should start catching real criminals....or start making the roads safer so that people don't cycle on the pavement.

 

[Riverman]

To give them some credit, there are some pretty irresponsible cyclists in the area.

You do get groups of teenagesrs on knackered mountain bikes without any lights weaving around the pavements. I'm convinced these people give cyclists a bad name with the police.

 

[Bollo]

Good to see Hampshire plod concentrating on the big issues. I might pop in to head office (I'm about half a mile from them in Winchester) and suggest a similar poster campaign for driving while using a mobile phone, speeding, RLJing (cars not bikes), blocking pavements by parking, driving without VED or insurance, driving with illegal tinted windows.....(need I go on)

 

[iacula]

There is too much pavement cycling in Southampton, but most pavements are empty of peds, so I can understand it. It is important to get cyclists onto the roads the more of us on the road the more motorists will be expecting us and ready to avoid us, and hindered by us. I suppose that is the point of the Critical Mass movement.

 

[thomas]

Good to see Hampshire plod concentrating on the big issues. I might pop in to head office (I'm about half a mile from them in Winchester) and suggest a similar poster campaign for driving while using a mobile phone, speeding, RLJing (cars not bikes), blocking pavements by parking, driving without VED or insurance, driving with illegal tinted windows.....(need I go on)

It's just easy statistics.

 

[HLaB]

Like wide roads which encourage irresponsible drivers to go faster, wide pavements may be encouraging irresponsible idiots on bikes to go dangerously fast. The Police may have found it a particular problem in this area and are targetting it.

 

[Riverman]

Maybe they're trying to raise money for a cycling lane.

 

[Bollo]

Maybe they're trying to raise money for a cycling lane.

They certainly don't need the money for a bigger printer.

 

[Arch]

I don't see the problem. The pavement is a pavement, and shouldn't be cycled on and they are letting people know that. Thanks to the proliferation of shared paths, I think a lot of people really don't understand the difference. And then you get the drivers telling you you should be on the pavement...

Yes, it would be lovely if they carved out a nice 5 foot wide bike lane from the pavement, like the ones I saw in Copenhagen (absolutely observed correctly by all users, and drivers must (and do) wait for upcoming cyclists to pass before they turn across them into a side road), but until they do, the pavement stays a pavement.

I'd rather be on the road, than weaving between pedestrian who are prone to stop or change direction without warning.

 

[downfader]

An elderly gent was knocked down early last year on Shirley road outside that very MacDonalds and iirc broke his hip.. or rather the pavement cyclist broke it for him.

Its not unjustified imo and the campaign has done some good. Though the vast majority of cyclists there ignore the signs and protest when Plod rightly give them the fine. Its the same in Portswood highstreet.

It should also be remembered that those pavements are really full of pedestrians from 9.30am right up to 5pm when the shops start to close. Numerous people have been shoulder-barged and clipped by numpties riding on the pavements in both those areas.

This is why we get s*** from people when cycling out and about here.

Oh and nearly forgot - most of the pavement space is actually tied in with shop property up and down Shirley High street, so there will never be a cyclelane there as its not council controlled.

 

[Arch]

Its not unjustified imo and the campaign has done some good. Though the vast majority of cyclists there ignore the signs and protest when Plod rightly give them the fine. Its the same in Portswood highstreet.

Excellent - numpty revenue generation...

 

[marinyork]

The road looks wide and a beautiful piece of tarmac, I can't see any need to cycle on the pavement. If the pavement is used heavily by peds then that's great it's what they are there for. I get suspicious of these campaigns though elsewhere where it's somehow all right for a car to drive/park on a pavement/pedestrian area and not a bicycle.

 

[downfader]

The road looks wide and a beautiful piece of tarmac, I can't see any need to cycle on the pavement. If the pavement is used heavily by peds then that's great it's what they are there for. I get suspicious of these campaigns though elsewhere where it's somehow all right for a car to drive/park on a pavement/pedestrian area and not a bicycle.

Parts of Shirley road and up further where it becomes Shirley High street were in need of resurfacing for nearly 20 years. Finally last year the funds came about and its now a loverly road to ride on, and pretty wide through most of it. Its one of the few places where I can do nearly 25mph on a slight incline and feel safe doing it inside the city.

 

[Bollo]

Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of pavement cyclists and quite enjoy the site of them being yanked by plod. But I'm struggling to find the same motivation by plod to crack down on driving misdemeanours.

This week, I've seen exactly zero cyclists RLJing, zero cyclists pavement cycling (RLJing not that common round here, but pavement cycling is not unusual), but I've managed to count ten drivers using their mobiles while driving. What's the priority again?