Why is riding on the footpath an offence?

[byegad]

My 'into town' trike has three warning sounds, a polite little dinger bell. A big loud Dong-Dong bell and an Air Zound. The Zound has twice saved me from a collision. Once when a car started to pull out of a junction without looking my way, I was touching 30mph as it was down a slight hill in Darlington. (All 'hills' in Darlington are slight. The second time in Durham City, where there are some goodly hills, a bus tried to left hook me coming up alongside and then swinging in towards me. Both times the driver's first response was to brake hard, then look for what made the sound. As my Kettwiesel has a fairly imposing on road presence, made larger by the Streamer fairing and me in a bright red top, there really was no excuse for them not seeing me.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144529, member: 45"]Most cyclist-ped collisions are on the road, and 60% of cyclist-ped collisions are the fault of the pedestrian.[/QUOTE]
I know where you were coming from. The point I was making or trying to make from my point of view is that I actually feel less safe on a shared cycle path than the road, but as I said in a previous post I have a lot of road experience, and for the most part I know what cars ect are doing just from their road position, I can't take into account cars just pulling out even though they should have seen me (as has happened, no damages apart from a broken water bottle cage), getting left hooked this too has happened but usually I have presence of mind to understand, check the vehicle overtaking check if any indicators are on and brake hard if need be, that's possible saved my life at least once and maybe twice.
However in the distance I ride I still see more bad cycling than bad car driving, it tends to be less dangerous though, but still can be dangerous, as @SpokeyDokey says its down to knowledge or rather lack of it, and whilst most riders on this forum are sensible ( I hope) out in the real world a lot of cyclists are not and it's this that gives cyclists a bad reputation.
I have had on numerous occasions had words with cyclists, whilst on my bike for jumping red lights, going down the inside of traffic, one set of lights near me is so dangerous that I have been nearly taken out on it, seen other in the same situation and we on both occasions were on green, you simple can not see up the roads from the white line its why it has a set of lights. The guy I recently had words with about going up on the left, told me he had been knocked off and had got plates ect, and I thought I am not surprised.
I know a little away from cyclists on footpaths, but foot paths are foot paths, I will get into B.O.A.T.'s if you want.
There is a clear definition in this country or there was as to the level of path/road use

Footpath - people only
Bridleway, horses and people
B.O.A.T. - byway open to all traffic
Roads - open to all
Motorways - vehicles only.

 

[morrisman]

So what if a test puts people off of cycling - if they are not competent enough to be on the road then they shouldn't be on it. That's the same as saying that we shouldn't have driving tests for cars etc in case it puts some people off.

So a 5 year old or 10 year old on an A Road is ok?

Why a 'maybe' for insurance? What would make a cyclist different to other road users?

You assume that people will who are put off are also incompetent. I know people who are perfectly competent at tasks who would fall to pieces if you said they had to pass a test before doing the task. Plus to carry on your car analogy would we need a fleet of tandems to allow 'learners' to be controlled by a 'licensed' rider whilst they build their competence?

 

[Nigelnaturist]

You assume that people will who are put off are also incompetent. I know people who are perfectly competent at tasks who would fall to pieces if you said they had to pass a test before doing the task. Plus to carry on your car analogy would we need a fleet of tandems to allow 'learners' to be controlled by a 'licensed' rider whilst they build their competence?

Motor cyclists don't pass their test like that.

 

[swansonj]

There is a clear definition in this country or there was as to the level of path/road use

Footpath - people only
Bridleway, horses and people
B.O.A.T. - byway open to all traffic
Roads - open to all
Motorways - vehicles only.

Correction - motorways are for certain motor vehicles only, not "vehicles only". You may think that's a needless pedantry and it's obvious that's what you meant. But slipping into the habit of assuming that "vehicle" means "motor vehicle" and that cycles are not vehicles is all part of the slide into evicting cyclists from the roads, and, for those of us who want to retain use of the roads as much as possible, something to be resisted. There are oh so many instances from history where the first step to victimising a group of people was to relabel them.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144582, member: 45"] But, and I said this yesterday, if drivers drove as they're supposed to then a cyclist would be able to wobble around, dawdle and generally ride at their own pace without any powered vehicle coming anywhere near them. As it is, most drivers don't give cyclists the amount of space that they should and so cyclists have to become over-competent. And many of them would be angered at the sight of a wobbler and complain that they shouldn't be on the road as they're not competent enough.[/QUOTE]
I agree but is this down to the understanding of how other road user need to use the road or just bad manners, I suspect its both, and is the new style driving test having an overall improvement as to awareness of new car drivers. I would say it has, but I can't back it up much other than in that I notice those that tend to wait behind me seem to be on the younger side, though all ages do, again its not a major problem for me, and I try and thank those that do.
A lot of drivers are unaware of the vortex (especially at speed) a moving vehicle creates, again awareness and this is something as far as I am aware is not taught to drivers, but I could be corrected on that point.
I knew the highway code inside and out when I was 10-11 years old, maybe kids should be tested on it as part of the school curriculum at least then they would have a basic understanding of the guide lines (The Highway Code, being just that not law) so no matter on what level their competence to ride a bike at least they would know what's the right and wrong thing to do, also maybe a regular test for other road users, not a full test but a competence test which would include the theory test as I am pretty sure many would fail it.

I try and support the rights of all users if following basic guide lines, I go on rides to try and raise awareness of the cyclist to other road users.

I am not anti car/bike/truck/bus (though I am a little concerned about the oil dependency thing, but thats a different issue), but if we all follow the basic guide lines there should be no animosity between road users, but that is a utopia its not going to happen, so as cyclists we have to ride to the best of our abilities, concentrate on what's next not what's just happened as it's the next one that's likely to kill not the one that's just past.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

Correction - motorways are for certain motor vehicles only, not "vehicles only". You may think that's a needless pedantry and it's obvious that's what you meant. But slipping into the habit of assuming that "vehicle" means "motor vehicle" and that cycles are not vehicles is all part of the slide into evicting cyclists from the roads, and, for those of us who want to retain use of the roads as much as possible, something to be resisted. There are oh so many instances from history where the first step to victimising a group of people was to relabel them.

Fair point, more me forgetting to put it in than not knowing.
They also have to be able to maintain a speed which does not cause problems to other road users so this actually counts out most other vehicles i.e. mopeds (though like horse drawn vehicles, these are actually prohibited ), large and slow moving vehicles need special permits and sometimes police escort, extended lorries (usually steel guiders) i.e. 60-70 ft need to follow set route more for the ability to get round certain junctions, runabouts, high loads to avoid low bridges, if you get these wrong you face hefty fines.

 

[swansonj]

[QUOTE 3144604, member: 45"]Horses aren't vehicles and are "traffic".

Really, we need to stop trying to put cycles alongside powered road vehicles. There is no comparison, and to try to do so is restricting the bicycle to only one of its many roles. There is never going to be a law which prevents cyclists from using the road. Let's focus on what we should be rather than the fear of something that's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
But it's not just laws, is it (though I am not as relaxed as you about the impossibility of laws). It's the bloke who shouts out of his window at you "you should be on the cycle path" as he passes you too closely. And it's the highway engineer who uprates a road to near motorway standard without providing alternatives for non-motorway traffic. Never mind future laws, both of those happen now.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144637, member: 45"]That's not strictly true, seeing as a scooter with an engine capacity of 50cc and above is permitted on the motorway.

But saying that, slow speed on the motorway should not cause a problem to other users if they're doing it right. There's that old assumption again.[/QUOTE]
No you can be ask to leave the motorway if your speed is sufficiently low to cause problems to the movement of other road users, which is why slow moving vehicles need permits, anything with an engine above 50cc is not a moped, or even an unrestricted 50cc because its not engine size that determines a moped these days but the restriction, at one point mopeds were unrestricted but had pedals (which is were the term came from motorised with pedals) then they were restricted but could lose the pedals but the term stuck to 50cc motorised bikes.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144604, member: 45"]Horses aren't vehicles and are "traffic".

Really, we need to stop trying to put cycles alongside powered road vehicles. There is no comparison, and to try to do so is restricting the bicycle to only one of its many roles. There is never going to be a law which prevents cyclists from using the road. Let's focus on what we should be rather than the fear of something that's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
They are if pulling something. Traffic is anything moving along a given area.
I don't have a problem with any vehicle using any road/byway open to them. I just think shared cycle paths are not the best thing we have come up with. I can understand M.T.B. on trials, but again this is a grey area in law.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144682, member: 45"]As I said, motorcycles of 50cc and above are permitted on motorways. I said scooters because I know what the definition of a moped is and there are far more 50-125cc scooters than what we'd call motorcycles.

How many vehicles legally using the motorway are asked to leave it?[/QUOTE]
Probably not many but the police have that power.
They are not restricted on the motorway as they can maintain a reasonable speed as could an unrestricted moped, but as these are restricted and can not maintain a sufficient speed they are not allowed to use them.
Trying to persuade the young fellow here to get a motor bike rather than a scooter, fashion thing I guess.

 

[vickster]

It's always bus drivers who seem to shout this at me...pure bloody impatience as if I hold them up more than traffic, lights, zebra crossings, not to mention the pesky passengers who want to get on and off the bus, making them stop every 500 yards!

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144683, member: 45"]A horse is not a vehicle.

Cyclists need to stop bickering over whether A is better than B, recognise that this is subjective, and get together to support the protection and growth of both. It doesn't have to be, and certainly shouldn't be, one or the other.[/QUOTE]
"Horse drawn vehicle" springs to mind, like I said they are part of a vehicle if pulling something, the engine if you like, like your the engine on your bike which is a vehicle.

I do agree about getting along and sharing.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

[QUOTE 3144710, member: 45"]The point is that a 100cc scooter would struggle to maintain what those with an engine mindset would consider an appropriate speed on a motorway, whether uphill or with someone riding pillion.[/QUOTE]
It will maintain 50mph easy enough. My truck would do no more than 53mph on the flat unloaded. We are taking about maintaining a bear minimum of speed so as to keep traffic moving (though there are probably more accidents that slow it down anyway), I have seen signs on certain stretches of urban motorways that have or did have the minimum blue speed sign, if memory serves me right these were usually 30mph, they weren't common and are more used on trunk and other major roads.

 

[Nigelnaturist]

I am off to do some photograph, obviously we will disagree about certain things, but I think we both agree about better awareness and willingness to share all round, is the way we need to go for all road uses.