who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463334"]
This isn't a legitimate reason though, and if you question people you'll find that they're only bothered about the idiots. And if you ever do meet one of the hot-heads, quote Mr Boateng at them and tell them to shut up.

Preventing those groups, including the examples I've given, from cycling because there are idiots on the road and the LA haven't made proper provision is sad. Very sad. And very unnecessary.
[/quote]
If a motorist drove on the hardshoulder of a Motorway because he was scared of traffic would that be acceptable?

 

[Mad at urage]

So when a driver gets off with a slap on the wrist for killing a cyclist the law is an ass. When it is in favour of the cyclist it is OK? When the law is overturned I will accept it.

Equating killing someone with riding on the pavement is a ratherstupid argument IMO

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1463334"]
This isn't a legitimate reason though, and if you question people you'll find that they're only bothered about the idiots. And if you ever do meet one of the hot-heads, quote Mr Boateng at them and tell them to shut up.
[/quote]

Better still quote Judge Simon Brown in the High Court:

"In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling."

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Equating killing someone with riding on the pavement is a ratherstupid argument IMO

Ok it was extreme. We moan when cars block cycle ways because they have nowhere to park but find it ok to ride on pavements.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Better still quote Judge Simon Brown in the High Court:

"In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety whilst cycling."

IIRC This case refered to one section of pavement and the circumstancses around the case were rather extreme.

 

[rowan 46]

If cycle paths are available then there is no need to ride on the road I agree. I agree the viewpoint stems from idiots but as has been discussed already cyclists are apparently becoming more hated by the day and the more ligitimate reasons we give people to hate us more fool us.

I have only been on this forum a short while and having seen some of the things that go on with other cyclists (I thought it was just me) I am beginning to think that the argument "we shouldn't give people an excuse to hate us " doesn't hold water. The fact is they do and always will providing there are cars on the road. If we can't ride responsibly on pavements and cycleways because pedestrians don't like it how long before we are driven off the roads we know how much drivers hate us. We are an inconvenience to some of them and they will never change. we are and always will be competition for the space they wish to occupy and that's the problem there are too many cars on the roads, However I don't wish to give up my family car it's too useful.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463329"]
Why should people have to? See quote from an undeniable genius-


Why should those groups (and others) have to mix with idiots on the road, when they can share space perfectly safely elsewhere?

We need to stop comparing bikes with road vehicles all the time. Yes, when on the road they're equal, but bicycles are so much more than that.

And to respond to the point about reinforcing views, get to the bottom of it and you'll see that people only have problems with the idiots.
[/quote]
I am guesring "the point" is why should they have to mix......

I say again, if there are cycle paths available then no need at all. If these facilities are not available then adults should learn to road ride. Bikability level 2 covers this for children L3 is aimed at adults.
Is there a point I have missed?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I have only been on this forum a short while and having seen some of the things that go on with other cyclists (I thought it was just me) I am beginning to think that the argument "we shouldn't give people an excuse to hate us " doesn't hold water. The fact is they do and always will providing there are cars on the road. If we can't ride responsibly on pavements and cycleways because pedestrians don't like it how long before we are driven off the roads we know how much drivers hate us. We are an inconvenience to some of them and they will never change. we are and always will be competition for the space they wish to occupy and that's the problem there are too many cars on the roads, However I don't wish to give up my family car it's too useful.

Many cyclists on this forum prefer to use roads than cycle paths. Cycle paths are useful when they are clear. Peds will always have priority on shared paths but cycling is obviouslx legal. On both cycle path and road we may be hated but we can be 100% legal giving us a much stronger possition to argue our case from. Also I find it funny that pavement cycling is deemed ok but when a driver maker a minor infringment of the law many expect the book to be thrown at the driver.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463343"]
Why should all cyclists be capable of mixing with aggressive traffic?

The groups I mentioned?...
[/quote]
In those situations I would look at alternate routes or at worst say the a bike is not a viable means of transport for them.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463345"]
Discretion is rightly used in both scenarios by the police. It's not complicated.
[/quote]
Many, especially on the Commuting Forum seem to demonize car drivers who make the slightest of errors.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463348"]
The bike should always be pushed as a viable means of transport. It's the best invention in history, remember?

There are plenty of examples in cities where pavements could be shared use but haven't been made so. If they're appropriate for this, and their use as such only provides benefits and with no downside, it's ridiculous to suggest that people should choose another form of transport and ignore government and police approval.
[/quote]
Then maybe it would be better to petition the LA or even sustrans to see if the pavements can become shared use paths? I am a huge advocate of cycling but am also an instructor so coule never advocate pavement cycling.

 

[snailracer]

Many, especially on the Commuting Forum seem to demonize car drivers who make the slightest of errors.

As does the law. Motorists are subject to more laws, for good reason - they are more dangerous.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463349"]
That's right.
[/quote]
So one law for cyclists another for drivers? I think the more we expect to get away with things and then condem others for equaly minor offences the more we will be seen as believing we are above the law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

As does the law. Motorists are subject to more laws, for good reason - they are more dangerous.

So it should be easy to obay the few laws that do apply to us.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1463353"]
I would hope that you make your subjects aware of the authorities' acceptance of pavement cycling where appropiate.
[/quote]
Yes all are made aware of the relevent legislation. I will not advocate it however and prefer to find quiet roads to teach nervious students on.