Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

[brokenbetty]

Sorry, but you'll have to point out where you addressed the question. I've just had a quick look and all I can find is you commenting on pavements where there are white lines separating pedestrians and cyclists

You assumed that I think the physical separation of the line is the important factor. That was a misunderstanding on your part. I said

"The white line makes all the difference. It says to pedestrians: "be alert, there might be bikes around. The LA has decided they are ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with the LA not the cyclist""

I used a white line as that was your example. I could equally have said

"The blue sign makes all the difference. It says to pedestrians: "be alert, there might be bikes around. The LA has decided they are ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with the LA not the cyclist""

The important factor is that something signifies the area is shared. The format is not important as long as it is understood by all parties.

You may or may not be interested to know that the reason I stepped away from the conversation before is because you consistently made similar misinterpretations of all my points, choosing to read them in a way that allowed you to refute them. I attempted to clarify things a few times but it quickly became clear the conversation would go nowhere.

I have a lot to say, but as it will trigger another time-sapping round of misdirection and disambiguation it just isn't worth the effort.

Again, I invite you to have the last word: I'm off to do something fun instead.

Liz

 

[very-near]

You know that this doesn't answer the question.

What makes one shared pavement safer than another pavement the same size but not shared? What's the difference between the pedestrianised areas in the centre of Birmingham that are on the cycling map and those that aren't?

You know you can't win this argument. You are flagrantly breaking the law on a daily basis. You know it is wrong to do so and you just don't care.

You argue for mitigation in the same way someone would for doing 120mph on an empty dual carriageway. They do it because they want to and sod everyone else (and the law)

If you don't accept you are doing something wrong by mixing it up on your commute with the pedestrians, then you must accept that this speeder is not creating an undue risk in these circumstances.

Pot and Kettle.

 

[rh100]

You know you can't win this argument. You are flagrantly breaking the law on a daily basis. You know it is wrong to do so and you just don't care.

You argue for mitigation in the same way someone would for doing 120mph on an empty dual carriageway. They do it because they want to and sod everyone else (and the law)

If you don't accept you are doing something wrong by mixing it up on your commute with the pedestrians, then you must accept that this speeder is not creating an undue risk in these circumstances.

Pot and Kettle.

Your argument bears no comparison - there is nowhere in this country that allows a motorist to drive at 120mph on a public road. It is a fact that a simple change of status by the LA can solve the legality problem, so there are places where cyclists can cycle on a pavement. So therefore from your arguments, you have no problem with anyone riding on a pavement so long as it has been rubber stamped by the LA?

By the way, I would suggest that if you stopped people on a shared path and asked if they knew it was shared - I imagine they wouldn't have a clue - same as drivers often don't know the speed limit they are in despite the signage - hence the sudden unnecesary slow downs at traffic cameras - it's human nature. A considerate cyclist would take this into account.

 

[marinyork]

By the way, I would suggest that if you stopped people on a shared path and asked if they knew it was shared - I imagine they wouldn't have a clue - same as drivers often don't know the speed limit they are in despite the signage - hence the sudden unnecesary slow downs at traffic cameras - it's human nature. A considerate cyclist would take this into account.

Many people really don't know what the blue signs mean.

 

[jimboalee]

Many people really don't know what the blue signs mean.

I thought the Blue and white signs meant "No Villa fans".

 

[jimboalee]

I almost got hit by a pavement cyclist last night.

I arrived home and this girl whizzed past, missing me by inches.

Scared the life out of me.

Then her Mom called her in for tea.

 

[Cab]

When I see one of these signs, I get off and walk (or cut around the back through post office lane). When I see one of these signs, I expect others to do the same.

Don't assume that all 'cyclists dismount' signs are legal. They're often put up by misguided council employees who think they're doing the right and legal thing, but aren't.

So, there are some 'cyclists dismpount' signs I pay attention to, some I do not. Theres one at the entry to an underground cycle parking site in Cambridge that I totally ignore, another on a narrow bridge I obey.

 

[rh100]

I thought the Blue and white signs meant "No Villa fans".

No, it means blues fans permitted

 

[Cab]

You know you can't win this argument. You are flagrantly breaking the law on a daily basis. You know it is wrong to do so and you just don't care.

You argue for mitigation in the same way someone would for doing 120mph on an empty dual carriageway. They do it because they want to and sod everyone else (and the law)

If you don't accept you are doing something wrong by mixing it up on your commute with the pedestrians, then you must accept that this speeder is not creating an undue risk in these circumstances.

Pot and Kettle.

Actually I wouldn't argue that people should ride their bikes on the pavements. But I would argue that to specifically target that 'crime' in any way is disproportionate to the amount of harm done. We haven't got never ending resources, and the damage done by a hundred and one other barely-policed problems is greater than the harm done by pavement cycling.

Its 'wrong', in that it is illegal, but there are a whole load of things that are more 'wrong' in that they cause more harm, without being any more or less illegal.

 

[very-near]

Update:

4 more on the ride in this morning. No trouble to anyone.

18/18. That's 100% of all the pavement cyclists I've seen in the last few days causing a problem for absolutely noone. And counting...

Smeggers speeds all the time and hasn't had a speed related accident yet. Does that make it OK ?

 

[wafflycat]

I don't suppose that MrP & Linf can actually stop doing the 'my dad's bigger than your dad' 'no he's not and anyway, my uncle has a bigger football than your uncle' tit-for-tat, just for once? Or get your own room together, preferrably room 101?

 

[BentMikey]

+1. They both have verbal diarrhea.

 

[Cab]

Counted 6 pavement cyclists this morning. Two mounted the pavement to go around a bin lorry on a narrow road with parked cars on either side, one was a postie going between houses, three mounted the pavement to get around a delivery lorry that was parked stupidly blocking the entire road; note that there would have been another 30 or so behind those, as it was in front of the colleges in the middle of Cambridge, but I stopped counting then.

Did not observe that any of these law breakers were inconveniencing anyone.

 

[HJ]

It rather ironic that the first record of a working pedal bicycle that exists is for Kirkpatrick Macmillan who was fine five shillings for running into a child on a pavement in Glasgow in 1842. So there we have it, the worlds first true cyclist was fined for riding on the pavement, some things never change!

 

[summerdays]

That sounds a steep fine for back in 1842!