Target pavement cyclists, say MPs

[rh100]

It pees me off when I see other cyclists sail past me through red lights when I'm observing the letter of the law (especially when they are dodging a line of traffic coming through from another way to get across and forcing them to take evasive action).

I uses the lights as an excuse to catch my breath, and those who ride on pavements are just wheeled pedestrians. They don't deserve the title of 'cyclist' !

Don't tar all with the same brush.

A bit smug isn't it, what does the 'title' of cyclist entitle you to then, and what test needs to be passed to 'deserve' it??

 

[adds21]

I think it depends on the situation. Unfortunately in this day and age it appears that everything has to be black or white and there's no room for common sense.

For example, there are a couple of places where I ride on the pavement on my commute home. One is by a busy junction, and if I didn't ride on the pavement I'd have to ride around a very busy 1 mile, four-lane, one-way system in one of the right hand lanes (near on-coming busses, because they have a lane going the “wrong way”). Instead, I ride about 50 meters on the pavement (always giving way to pedestrians if there are any).

The second is on a long (~2 mile) uphill on a very busy A road which contains several pinch points. This is out of town, and I've yet to see a pedestrian on the pavement. I could quite easily ride on the road, but I feel it's safer and more courteous not to. If I was on the road it would force the constant stream of traffic to either slow down to my up-hill-puffing 8mph, rather than their (to be fair, safe) 50mph each time we came to one of the pinch points, or to simply push past me.

So, while in principle I agree that generally speaking riding on the pavements is wrong, I think it does depend on the situation.

 

[ComedyPilot]

So in the absence of any kind of safe cycle path, for users too new - nervous - lacking in skill etc, where are they going to ride?

What is really the problem if someone is safe and responsible and dismounts in busy pedestrian areas like a high st etc?

I understand that training a rider to go on the road is a possible solution, but who will go to lessons enough times to get confidence to go on the road before they can go anywhere else?

Confidence comes with time, it would be irresponsible to go straight on the road from day one. If you want more people to cycle, then we have to put up with some people on the pavement whilst they find their confidence in handling the bike. Yes, there are those that clearly show no sign of wanting to do things properly (I'm thinking of the obvious chav), but it's not black and white.

I have to ask, at what point did you start to ride on the road?

About 35 years ago, maybe (more than likely) more. I didn't learn to ride on a path, but in a village with narrow roads and shoulder-width paths. I did the cycling proficienct test at school, and have been on the road ever since.

How many 'wobbling' newcomers on paths hold a driving license?

 

[very-near]

So in the absence of any kind of safe cycle path, for users too new - nervous - lacking in skill etc, where are they going to ride?

What is really the problem if someone is safe and responsible and dismounts in busy pedestrian areas like a high st etc?

I understand that training a rider to go on the road is a possible solution, but who will go to lessons enough times to get confidence to go on the road before they can go anywhere else?

Confidence comes with time, it would be irresponsible to go straight on the road from day one. If you want more people to cycle, then we have to put up with some people on the pavement whilst they find their confidence in handling the bike. Yes, there are those that clearly show no sign of wanting to do things properly (I'm thinking of the obvious chav), but it's not black and white.

I have to ask, at what point did you start to ride on the road?

Sorry, I disagree with most of this.

If a child is learning to ride a small cycle on the pavement under the supervision of their parents, then that is fair enough, but cycle training is run all over the country to enable people (and kids) to cycle safely and confidently as an equal in traffic on the roads.

Moped riders are not allowed on the road before doing a CBT (compulsory basic training) and nearly all cyclists have the ability to attain the max design speed of moped on a gradient.

Cycles belong on the road and those using the paths just reinfiorce the notion that their users have no legal or moral right to be there.

 

[adscrim]

Last paragraph - civil servant talks sense shocker

"Richard Devereux, the top civil servant at the Department for Transport, pointed out that, according to the Highway Code, it was illegal to cycle on pavements. But he said it was wrong to assume that all cyclists were dangerous.
"There are, without doubt, some elements of the cycling community who are in that position and there are equally, I imagine, rather more people who are far more dangerous drivers as well," he said."

 

[very-near]

A bit smug isn't it, what does the 'title' of cyclist entitle you to then, and what test needs to be passed to 'deserve' it??

I took my cycling proficience training and test at the age of 10. The lessons I learned there were the fundamental rules ofthe road and helped me enormously when I started riding m/cycles and driving cars.

 

[rh100]

About 35 years ago, maybe (more than likely) more. I didn't learn to ride on a path, but in a village with narrow roads and shoulder-width paths. I did the cycling proficienct test at school, and have been on the road ever since.

How many 'wobbling' newcomers on paths hold a driving license?

I think you were very lucky then, and the key thing may be the village you learnt in, my experience of cycling has been in and around Birmingham, growing up on a major dual carriageway. Going on road was not an option for any children in our area that I recall. Even now my parents show concern when I tell them I go cycling for 20 miles or whatever, and I'm 34 FFS. I don't remember having the opportunity for a cycling proficiency, wish I had though. But as I say, there still would be a transition stage before hitting the road.

As for newcomers on paths holding a drivers licence, I don't know. All I know is that my experience of driving gives me an advantage of maybe reading the road a bit better, but I keenly feel the lack of security of being in a hunk of metal.

 

[very-near]

I think you were very lucky then, and the key thing may be the village you learnt in, my experience of cycling has been in and around Birmingham, growing up on a major dual carriageway. Going on road was not an option for any children in our area that I recall. Even now my parents show concern when I tell them I go cycling for 20 miles or whatever, and I'm 34 FFS. I don't remember having the opportunity for a cycling proficiency, wish I had though. But as I say, there still would be a transition stage before hitting the road.

As for newcomers on paths holding a drivers licence, I don't know. All I know is that my experience of driving gives me an advantage of maybe reading the road a bit better, but I keenly feel the lack of security of being in a hunk of metal.

Your training in the car gives you the advantage of reading the road. 1st hand experience is a good teacher, but you have to have an accident or near miss to learn the lesson.

Cycle training IMO helps people to acquire confidence and skill and will only help increase its popularity.

 

[wafflycat]

Shock, horror.. MPs ignore the elephant in the room - the fact it isn't cyclists killing & maiming thousands of people every year, it's motorists. Quelle surprise! Not.

I don't like pavement cycling - don't agree with it, don't do it. BUT, when policing resources are limited, surely it makes sense to concentrate resources on the biggest danger and the area that can really save lives? That would be more serious policing of motorists (and I am a motorists, cyclist & pedestrian).

But hey, never let the reality of the danger of pavement cycling get in the way of a Daily Wail rant against cyclists..

 

[Wheeledweenie]

What disappoints me about this article is that they're not looking at WHY some people cycle on pavements.

Don't get me wrong, I get quite angry when I see some pavement cyclists but it's because the majority of the ones I see are on busy pavements and quite a few are on mobile phones and cycling on the pavement

But when I see an obvious novice cycling on a deserted pavement because they're too scared to go on the road I sympathise. The Uxbridge Road has cycle lanes but they're full of parked cars and crap drivers are everywhere. If you haven't got your wits about you you could easily get into trouble.

A person I'm bike buddying started off by going along off-road cycle paths near her home but she was incredibly lucky to have any nearby and said she'd have been lost without them. When she first commuted on-road I went with her (and we still cycle in together) because she didn't want to go it alone and wanted to go with someone who could talk her through any nasty junctions.

Perhaps in cycle lanes were better protected and there were more cycle-only but off-road areas to practice on people would get on the road.

 

[delphi]

I'm in two minds about this. In almost all situations I cycle on the road. On occasion, through very busy traffic I have got onto an empty pavement to avoid car drivers who make it a sport to try to cut me up. If a pedestrian does appear I give them right of way. I suppose that the best course of action would be to get off my bike and walk with it on the pavement.

I think what annoys me about 'targeting' cyclists on the pavement is that they are not addressing the issues that many cyclists on the pavement are facing - aggressive car drivers or SMIDSY drivers. Whilst the police don't bother to prosecute car drivers that are actually crashing into cyclists, even when they are injuring them, then it seems very unfair to prosecute cyclists on the pavements. I mean they don't even fine these drivers the £30 they will fine cyclists for being on the pavement.

Having been hit by an idiot car driver, it took all my courage to get back on the road afterwards and I still have moments of sheer panic if I allow myself to think at any point 'would I live if someone were to hit me now'. Sometimes it would be a joy just to get onto the pavement and not think about it.

 

[very-near]

Shock, horror.. MPs ignore the elephant in the room - the fact it isn't cyclists killing & maiming thousands of people every year, it's motorists. Quelle surprise! Not.

I don't like pavement cycling - don't agree with it, don't do it. BUT, when policing resources are limited, surely it makes sense to concentrate resources on the biggest danger and the area that can really save lives? That would be more serious policing of motorists (and I am a motorists, cyclist & pedestrian).

But hey, never let the reality of the danger of pavement cycling get in the way of a Daily Wail rant against cyclists..

This has got concensus of opinion across all the party's.

Pavement cycling scares peds.

 

[Ranger]

For example, there are a couple of places where I ride on the pavement on my commute home. One is by a busy junction, and if I didn't ride on the pavement I'd have to ride around a very busy 1 mile, four-lane, one-way system in one of the right hand lanes (near on-coming busses, because they have a lane going the “wrong way”). Instead, I ride about 50 meters on the pavement (always giving way to pedestrians if there are any).

So, while in principle I agree that generally speaking riding on the pavements is wrong, I think it does depend on the situation.

I have a similar situation due to road works at the moment, but guess what, I get off the bike and WALK the 50m of so to get around it. It only takes slightly longer but also avoids pissing off pedestrians and all the car drivers that see me do it

 

[Windward]

I was thinking about this the other day when I saw a mother with a baby on the back of her bike doddling along on the pavement, surely it's safe (indeed, safer!) to have people like that on the pavement travelling at a slow speed?

Mixed use sidewalks are an example that this does work, it's rare that pedestrians take any notice of the cycle part of the path (if it is even deliniated at all!) and the worst things that happen are just inconvienient rather than dangerous. I don't see why most pavements can't be mixed use like this, the only dangerous thing would be cyclists going too fast, but anyone who can cycle that fast should be on the road anyway!

So almost all pavements could be mixed use, with speed limits? This sounds hard to enforce, but it's not like the police enforce the law as it is anyway, at least this makes more sense!

 

[Nortones2]

Anti-social cycling etc is covered by number four in a list of 7 recommendations, in the PAC report. tinyurl.com/ygtezuc The report also mentions the perception that certain cyclists risk injury by red light jumping. Neither aspect, illegal use of the pavement, nor red light jumping is the monopoly of cyclists alone. The first 3 recommendations emphasised the risk to vulnerable road users, with steps suggested to reduce the incidence of death and injuries. Predictable that the BBC pick on one aspect. Perceptions indeed. IIRC, the police are guided that "safe" pavement cycling should not be considered an offence. May be the ACPO, but I can't recall where I saw the guidance. perhaps this is something else the DoT has forgotten!