# Target pavement cyclists, say MPs



## Occam's Razor (22 Oct 2009)

Have a look at this article on the BBC website.

What does the panel think?


----------



## u9ge (22 Oct 2009)

Fair play, I think most here would like to see enforcement, but the artle mentions nothing of RLJ and certainly nothing of women getting cruched to death by large trucks.

Then again if you kill a cyclist you'd probably have less of a chance of prosecution and more lenient a sentance than a pavement cyclist.


----------



## Alien8 (22 Oct 2009)

I think it's the usual old tosh - written by the brain dead for the brain dead.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2009)

Hello, welcome to the site, hope you enjoy your stay.

I think if you have a search around you'll find that 'real' cyclists views on pavement riding are quite strong - we don't do it.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Oct 2009)

Enforcing traffic law is never a bad thing.

However, I'd put other traffic offences higher up the list of priorities, personally.


----------



## Cab (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Hello, welcome to the site, hope you enjoy your stay.
> 
> I think if you have a search around you'll find that 'real' cyclists views on pavement riding are quite strong - we don't do it.




Although we don't all condemn it as harshly.

Its worth remembering that the fixed penalty notices brought in to target this were never meant to be a blunt instrument. They aren't there for plod to stake out streets where this is known to happen and have a crackdown, they're not there to target cyclists scared off the road on busy sections full of fast, terrifying (to the inexperienced especially) traffic. In fact guidance to the police force when they were introduced was specifically to be lenient in such cases.

If someone is cycling on the pavement slowly, causing no harm, then frankly I don't care. Technically they're breaking the law so should plod get 'em they're fair game. But it is not the case that pavement cycling is necessarily problematic or 'antisocial'. 

And, lastly, theres a lack of this committee having a sense of proportion. Who kills more pedestrians on the pavements, motorists or cyclists? By how many?


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2009)

I'm happy for them to do this, but I do wish they'd target all other road users equally, such as the thousands and thousands of pavement drivers found in London.


----------



## Cab (22 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> I'm happy for them to do this, but I do wish they'd target all other road users equally, such as the thousands and thousands of pavement drivers found in London.



It would be so easy to do so too. They're there, the car parked on the pavement, they didn't drop it there with a crane, they're pavement drivers. They do more harm to people and to the pavements than bikes do. So, why is there never any kind of concerted effort to tackle this?


----------



## jimboalee (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Hello, welcome to the site, hope you enjoy your stay.
> 
> I think if you have a search around you'll find that 'real' cyclists views on pavement riding are quite strong - we don't do it.



Bravo.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

Quote: 

Committee member and Tory MP David Curry said some were "irresponsible and arrogant road users" and said many people believed they took no notice of red lights and believed traffic cones were "not for them".
"The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons," he said.
"We seem to regard cyclists as living in some sort of superior moral category when they actually do not have any."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ho hum......why so scared of cyclists they have to attack them. Is it because it makes them think about there own wasteful use of vehicles I wonder? If they quoted someone who had clear experience of cycling, then I would listen.


----------



## WimbledonCyclist (22 Oct 2009)

_Quote from the article:_
_Committee member and Tory MP David Curry said some [cyclists] were "irresponsible and arrogant road users" [...]_
_"The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons," he said. _
_"We seem to regard cyclists as living in some sort of superior moral category when they actually do not have any."_ 

I fully agree that pavement cyclists are a menace. But look at the article in more detail and the story slightly changes. David Curry MP has been hit by a ferocious cyclist - and he lived to tell the tale. So we've got a bunch of annoying cyclists whose behaviour makes others feel unsafe, and who sometimes crash into people, who then live to tell the tale.

Now read a few paragraphs before this:

_In 2007 more than 30,000 pedestrians and 16,000 cyclists were injured, while 646 and 136 respectively were killed on Britain's roads. _

This doesn't paint the wider picture, which would show that between 2,500 and 3,000 people were killed in traffic every year over the past few years.

I would put the menace cyclist in the same category as other annoying, anti-social louts/ladettes who cause trouble. The police should enforce the law when the situation demands so.

It needs stating again: focus our tax, police and intellectual resources where they make the greatest difference. In this case, on general traffic safety and bringing down the number of road deaths. I would like the committee members to devote their energy, my tax money, police time on precisely that. 

Once they've sorted that out, they can fill in the details on menace cyclists who cause a general "perception of danger".


----------



## jimboalee (22 Oct 2009)

My mom rode on the pavement most of the time when she was in her sixties and seventies.

I can remember back when I was at school following my mom home, the two local beat Bobbies waved and said a cheerie "Hello Winnie" as we rode past on the opposite pavement.

I have said before on this forum Solihull police turn a 'blind eye' to cyclists on the pavement who are not causing any disturbance. i.e. Ladies and young children, the elderly and a Middle aged man on a BSA 20 going to Sainsbury's.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Hello, welcome to the site, hope you enjoy your stay.
> 
> I think if you have a search around you'll find that 'real' cyclists views on pavement riding are quite strong - we don't do it.



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?


----------



## Chamfus Flange (22 Oct 2009)

I agree with jumbo. If there are no peds on the side walk then what's the problem. Most pavements don't have anyone on them in surrey: waste of tarmac. There are far more interesting issues to deal with: drivers leaving the scene of a crash; speeding in residential areas. If you're found cycling on the pavement with peds then it's obvious to one and all you being a pain.



.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

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.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

wafflycat said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

adds21 said:


> 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 (22 Oct 2009)

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 (22 Oct 2009)

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!


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2009)

I think fraudulent claiming by MPs of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money is more of a concern to me than their 'concerns' about cyclists


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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?



They do what learner drivers do - drive on quiet roads and build up their confidence.

If you aren't comfortable on a busy road, you get off the bike and wheel it along the pavement. You don't just cycle on the pavement for your own convenience.



rh100 said:


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



Before I was 10. It would have been embarassing any other way.

When I see anyone older than about 12 riding on the pavement I just think "what a wuss"

Liz


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> .. 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.



Sorry - you're just flat-out factually wrong, and not just wrong but really wrong. I live in one on the UK's largest cities, Glasgow. While urging us to get on our bikes, the local authority blithely refer you to a charity for learner tuition: the website looks full of possibilities. However, it turns out the charity only provides tuition to children and to adults _being certificated as tutors_. But for beginner-adults - nothing. 

Contact your local authority _and follow up on _whoever they put you in touch with. You may get a bit of a shock. *The adult tuition you (and I) complacently assume is in place all over the country is not - not by any stretch of the imagination. 
*
In the end, the charity recommended that I hire a private tutor - in Edinburgh: (Not unlike a lot of other new cyclists, I imagine, I can't afford to _go _to Edinburgh, let alone hire a private tutor. And if I did, I'd first have to cycle through two city-centres in order to get to a lesson.)


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Oct 2009)

> urely it makes sense to concentrate resources on the biggest danger and the area that can really save lives?



Unitl it costs votes, of course, at which point we go back to the populist, and low cost option of Policing those causing less danger.


----------



## Mr Pig (22 Oct 2009)

The police round my way cycle on the pavement all the time! Saw two last night.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



OK, fair enough, you learnt as a youngster as some others have also said, I sincerely think that that is great.

But what about people starting later in life, where do they learn, training courses can only be so good - would any one of these instructors take learners through massive intersections and along dual carriageways etc, I might be wrong but I doubt it.

Yes, learners do start to learn on small roads, and they need a licence because they are in a dangerous vehicle, not because the other vehicles are a danger to them.

A dangerous cyclist can be dangerous on the road aswell, just because they are on the road does not make them any better.

Brokenbetty, calling anyone who rides on a pavement a wuss is just plain ignorant.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

I notice that an awful lot of you, when talking about pavement cycling assume that new cyclists will have a driving licence, or don't have one because they've been banned. Bbefore you condemn "wusses" cycling on the pavement, have a wee think on how you'd have felt on your first-ever time on the road as a learner driver if you were expected to just get in the car and drive down the road alone - albeit in your protective metal tank.

I think you underestimate how many people there are out there for whom just being on a road facing along the way instead of across the way is an entirely new experience. 

*More than half of the urban poor have never learned to drive.* And it's skewed by sex; even fewer women drive. These are the people who could and should benefit by cycling more than anyone else. The big thing stopping them is perfectly rational fear (There are little things too: like social pressure borne of unthinking snobbery and kneejerk condemnation by people who prevfer to keep "chavs" in their place - off bikes.)

These are SCottish statistics, but I don't imagine the situation is far different south of the border.

_"In 2007, two-thirds (68 per cent) of adults (aged 17+) had a full driving licence: 78 per cent of men compared to 60 per cent of women, according to the Scottish Household Survey (SHS). The percentage was highest (81 per cent) for those aged between 35 and 44. Licence possession was higher for men than for women in almost every age-group. *Possession of a full driving licence *increased with income, from *46 per cent of adults living in low-income households (net annual household income of up to £10,000),* to 92 per cent of those in high-income households (net annual household income of over £40,000). In rural areas, over four-fifths of adults had a full driving licence, compared with three-fifths in large urban areas."_

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Transport-Travel/TrendDrivingLicense


----------



## jezhiggins (22 Oct 2009)

Nortones2 said:


> Anti-social cycling etc is covered by number four in a list of 7 recommendations, in the PAC report. http://tinyurl.com/ygtezuc



Interesting and revealing use of language in the conclusions. It says that there is "*a strongly held perception that, through the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists, they are a hazard to themselves and other road users*" and so the DoT should "*devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws*". 

The unsurprising conclusion that "*speed is an overwhelming factor in the incidence and severity of injuries to pedestrians and cyclists*" leads to a much more softly worded recommendation. To counteract speeding the Department should "*promote measures to reduce speed, including the use of speed cameras, 20 miles per hour zones and road humps, to encourage local highway authorities to adopt them and to influence the attitudes of all road users*".

Cyclists should be targetted, even when not breaking the law. Speeding motorists who are breaking the law should be influenced.

Hmm.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

" drive on quiet roads and build up their confidence."

Very nice. And for those who _don't _live in the leafy suburbs...?


----------



## GrasB (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


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


My grandfather, who was a driving instructor, taught me to ride in the middle of Bolsover, Derbyshire when I was 7 or 8. First day or 2 was up & down a quiet side road getting used to riding, manoeuvring & signalling on the bike. Then we had daily rides through the town where he corrected things I was doing wrong. When he said I was ready to ride on my own my parents thought it was safe for me to ride anywhere I wanted to with in the town as long as I was on the road. I've never felt the need to cycle on the pavement.


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

> To suggest that anyone wanting to ride a bike should be able to manage the most congested and fastest of roads is disappointing.



Who said they should?

Anyone who finds themself faced with a road they aren't confident on can get off and wheel the bike. They aren't glued to the saddle. Unlike a car you can move it as easily as it can move you. That is what makes a bike a uniquly accessible type of transport.

I really don't understand "I won't ride on the road so I *have* to ride on the pavement"

Liz


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> " drive on quiet roads and build up their confidence."
> 
> Very nice. And for those who _don't _live in the leafy suburbs...?



Ah, like me you mean?

They wheel the bike to a quieter road, which almost everywhere in the urban UK is no further than a block or so.

Liz


----------



## GrasB (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> " drive on quiet roads and build up their confidence."
> 
> Very nice. And for those who _don't _live in the leafy suburbs...?


I'm sure you can find a quiet side street or 2, I learnt in the middle of a fairly busy town but there were still a number of residential side roads to practice in.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2009)

> As I suggested before, take a trip to Holland where there is plenty of separate provision, but the whole attitude about cyclists on roads is completely different to here.



This bit is boll0cks, because if you'd ridden there and not used a path where there is one, you'd have been beeped.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> I notice that an awful lot of you, when talking about pavement cycling assume that new cyclists will have a driving licence, or don't have one because they've been banned. Bbefore you condemn "wusses" cycling on the pavement, have a wee think on how you'd have felt on your first-ever time on the road as a learner driver if you were expected to just get in the car and drive down the road alone - albeit in your protective metal tank.
> 
> I think you underestimate how many people there are out there for whom just being on a road facing along the way instead of across the way is an entirely new experience.
> 
> ...



To be fair, I think term used for Chav when on here is taken to mean a type of rider, rather than any social connotation. I take it to mean young lad, earphones in, mobile phone to ear single handed weaving everywhere type - and it's my experience that these types will ride anywhere, pavement or road and not look whilst changing between the two with no respect for ANY other road users and paying no attention to safety.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Sorry - you're just flat-out factually wrong, and not just wrong but really wrong. I live in one on the UK's largest cities, Glasgow. While urging us to get on our bikes, the local authority blithely refer you to a charity for learner tuition: the website looks full of possibilities. However, it turns out the charity only provides tuition to children and to adults _being certificated as tutors_. But for beginner-adults - nothing.
> 
> Contact your local authority _and follow up on _whoever they put you in touch with. You may get a bit of a shock. *The adult tuition you (and I) complacently assume is in place all over the country is not - not by any stretch of the imagination. *
> 
> In the end, the charity recommended that I hire a private tutor - in Edinburgh: (Not unlike a lot of other new cyclists, I imagine, I can't afford to _go _to Edinburgh, let alone hire a private tutor. And if I did, I'd first have to cycle through two city-centres in order to get to a lesson.)



I'm not familiar with Glasgow, but I just came up with this in about 20 seconds with Google.

they offer off and on road training from basic skills to advanced stuff.

A cop taught me on the cycling proficiency in school as was the case with both my kids.

There is no charity to help people learn to drive, why should this be provided for people to cycle .

I read on here a while ago that cyclists are usually higher earners than car drivers and have a higher disposable income. A decent cycle is not cheap so if someone can afford one, then they (or their parents) can pay for training if this bit is wanting (IMO)


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

> So let's prevent anyone but the most confident of cyclists from being able to ride in a city?



Eh? How does stopping cyclists riding on the pavement prevent them riding in a city?

They can ride on the roads that they are confident on
They can get off and wheel the bike where they aren't
They can get back on again when they are past that bit
And of course they can use cyclepaths should they choose to

I doubt there are any places that can't be reached this way yet could be reached by cycling on the pavement.

People who cycle on the pavement could get off and wheel, they just don't want to.

Liz


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> Ah, like me you mean?
> 
> They wheel the bike to a quieter road, which almost everywhere in the urban UK is no further than a block or so.
> 
> Liz



OK, so we've gone up and down a side street a couple of times - I'm still not getting anywhere I want to go to. Should I give up on the bike and get the bus - (and lose all the benefits of cycling like health and finance). When I want to go to the shop's, should I push the bike the 6 mile round trip? Explain all this to Joe Bloggs, who might be thinking of starting to cycle, and he'll think sod it, I'll keep me car. For me, the thrill of riding a bike again is what made me persevere, if I had to spend ages going up and down side streets (which I did for a very short while, incidentally didn't teach me anything about cycling through busy junctions etc) I wouldn't be getting to places I wanted to go and interest would easily wane.


----------



## Trevrev (22 Oct 2009)

I'd better give my 6 and 4 year old some training on the roads.
PMSL !!!!!


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> I'm not familiar with Glasgow, but I just came up with this in about 20 seconds with Google.
> 
> they offer off and on road training from basic skills to advanced stuff.
> 
> ...



I have to now ask what planet you come from? Do you think everyone is on a decent cycle? Is £80 extravagant? How much is a cheap car? At least £500, for some people a bike is ALL they could afford. To be honest I think you are a wind up merchant now. Best wishes.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

> Nonsense.
> 
> Spend a day in Cheltenham looking at the cyclists linf.
> 
> ...



You are saying that cyclists should not just be treated as 2nd class citizens whoshould not be treated as equals on the road, but it is the preferred mode for the poverty stricken - oh dear


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

"they offer off and on road training from basic skills to advanced stuff."

*Yes, exactly what I said - on - on the website, it looks like it.*

And did you take my advice and actually follow up on this?

Because when I did, everybody told me this was something that "used to" happen, or happened "last summer at some point", and that "somebody" else was doing now. And every "somebody else" tells me it's the other lot doing it.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> I have to now ask what planet you come from? Do you think everyone is on a decent cycle? Is £80 extravagant? How much is a cheap car? At least £500, for some people a bike is ALL they could afford. To be honest I think you are a wind up merchant now. Best wishes.



Solihull is proper posh, I'll bet you all ride full carbon bikes up there


----------



## jimboalee (22 Oct 2009)

A person decides they might like to ride a bicycle. A friend helps them chose a suitable bike. It comes to their first ride. "I can't ride on the pavement, that's not allowed" they say, and "I'm scared of riding on the road".

It's decision time. Now is the time for them to decide whether cycling is their 'cup-of-tea'.

"Let's go to the park. There are cycle lanes there." the friend suggests. "No. I will be looked at if I fall off" replies the new cyclist.

"If you ride on the footpath, just stop if someone else walks the other way" says the friend.

There is silence.

"Are you sure you want to ride this bike?" asks the friend.
"Yes.".
"Then the footpath is the safest place".

So the new cyclist gently rides off along the footpath. 15 minutes later, the new cyclist is riding their bike and even changing gear.


Did you laugh?
This is the tale of when jimboalee's ex wife got a bike.

Two weeks after this, Ex-mrs jimboalee rode the whole length of the Camel Trail from Padstow to Bodmin and back.
Now, Ex-mrs jimboalee rides to work on the road like ( 'cus she is ) a confident cyclist.

We broke the law. Throw us in jail.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Solihull is proper posh, I'll bet you all ride full carbon bikes up there



I only ride though Solihull's leafy suburbs, I don't live in them (and not all of it is posh, believe me)


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

Wheeledweenie said:


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



Absolutely right, what we really need is to tame the Sacred Bull in Society's China Shop, a blanket 20mph speed limit would be a good start.



WeeE said:


> I notice that an awful lot of you, when talking about pavement cycling assume that new cyclists will have a driving licence, or don't have one because they've been banned. Bbefore you condemn "wusses" cycling on the pavement, have a wee think on how you'd have felt on your first-ever time on the road as a learner driver if you were expected to just get in the car and drive down the road alone - albeit in your protective metal tank.
> 
> I think you underestimate how many people there are out there for whom just being on a road facing along the way instead of across the way is an entirely new experience.
> 
> ...



The odd thing is that the majority of adult cyclist come from the higher income groups...


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> OK, so we've gone up and down a side street a couple of times - I'm still not getting anywhere I want to go to. Should I give up on the bike and get the bus - (and lose all the benefits of cycling like health and finance). When I want to go to the shop's, should I push the bike the 6 mile round trip? Explain all this to Joe Bloggs, who might be thinking of starting to cycle, and he'll think sod it, I'll keep me car. For me, the thrill of riding a bike again is what made me persevere, if I had to spend ages going up and down side streets (which I did for a very short while, incidentally didn't teach me anything about cycling through busy junctions etc) I wouldn't be getting to places I wanted to go and interest would easily wane.



Well, that's how people learn to drive safely. They don't get anywhere they want to go at first, they go up and down the quiet streets building their skills.

They don't say "I'm not ready to go on a main road yet but I really want to drive to the shops so I'll go on the pavement instead".

You don't spend ages going up and down side streets for no reason, you just keep on quiet roads until you feel confident trying busier ones. And if you don't want to do that, that's your call, but that doesn't give Joe Bloggs the right to ride on the pavement just because he can't be bothered to learn road skills.

And if that 6 mile journey to the shops is so much on busy roads that he would end up pushing the bike all the way, then yes, for that journey he should still be on the bus. That doesn't stop him using the bike to go to the corner shop half a mile away, and maybe after a few trips like that the busy road will look a bit less scary.

Oh, and you learn busy junctions by working up from un-busy ones.

Liz


----------



## CotterPin (22 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> This bit is boll0cks, because if you'd ridden there and not used a path where there is one, you'd have been beeped.





> I've ridden through Holland and never experienced any of that, and neither did I see any of it when I wasn't on the bike.



Happened to me in Belgium, which has a similar network of bike lanes. More perversely I encountered a local club riding (at some speed) the cycle lane.


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

> You're more than capable of coming up with your own examples of urban trips that require either a lot of busy road riding or a considerable detour. If not, I'd be happy to show you a few.



Urban trips that can be reached by riding on the pavement but not by wheeling the bike? Yes, please do.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> The odd thing is that the majority of adult cyclist come from the higher income groups...



Well, I won't argue that they do - you're probably right - but it's not at all odd that they do. 

Q. What do non-cyclists say stops them cycling? A. Fear of traffic

Q. What demographic group is _more likely than not _to be traffic virgins? (ie highest proportion of non-drivers?) A The poor.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

Oh, and another one: Where do the cycle paths get built?
(a) the crummy east-end arse-ends of cities
or
( the rather nice university areas, business districts and west-end commute-routes


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Oh, and another one: Where do the cycle paths get built?
> (a) the crummy east-end arse-ends of cities
> or
> ( the rather nice university areas, business districts and west-end commute-routes




Where I live, the west end is the rough area, and the east end is the posh one, and it is the poor area where the cyclepath money has been spent


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> Well, that's how people learn to drive safely. They don't get anywhere they want to go at first, they go up and down the quiet streets building their skills.
> 
> They don't say "I'm not ready to go on a main road yet but I really want to drive to the shops so I'll go on the pavement instead".
> 
> ...



Agreed, it's not about those not being bothered to learn though, it's about increasing in confidence for those that are.

No-one is going to be encouraged to take up cycling with this method, there becomes no purpose to the ride. I've learn't what I have by commuting and going wherever, over that period my skills and confidence have increased. I quickly found that going by road is much faster than on pavement - and that was more of an incentive to try it than anything else. Tootling around side streets avoiding everything makes it seem pointless. Use the path when you feel like it on your way somewhere, so long as it is SAFE to do so, and use the road when you feel confident to do so, the rest comes naturally IMO.

I do think we are making a mistake comparing cars to bikes though, whilst they supposedly share the same traffic lanes, cars have millions of pounds worth (R&D wise) of safety for the driver, cutting edge technology. A cyclist is essentially on a design that hasn't changed any over 100 years - except maybe a helmet and hi-viz


----------



## jimboalee (22 Oct 2009)

The Ex mrs jimboalee. She left me for a bike


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Where I live ... it is the poor area where the cyclepath money has been spent



Great! Who's your local authority? I'd love to be able to find any online documentation they have about how/why they decided to site their cyclepaths.


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Agreed, it's not about those not being bothered to learn though, it's about increasing in confidence for those that are.



I am more cynical than you I'm afraid: I think the majority of pavement riders will stay on the pavement forever. After all, on the pavement a bike is big and fast and people get out of the way - that's exactly NOT the skills you want to develop for the road 

But having to wheel your bike on the pavement - now that is a good motivator to get out on the road where you can ride.


----------



## rh100 (22 Oct 2009)

fair enough - will agree to disagree


----------



## WimbledonCyclist (22 Oct 2009)

The thread is veering towards a discussion of the pros and cons of cycling on the pavement. It's fair that we should be discussing that, but it does distract from the bigger issues in traffic.

But to get back on topic: I'd rather see the parliamentary committee aim for safer traffic generally, especially a reduction in road deaths and serious injuries. By shifting the discussion to nuisance cyclists, they're blocking out time they could use to sort out more important problems first.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Great! Who's your local authority? I'd love to be able to find any online documentation they have about how/why they decided to site their cyclepaths.



Cheltenham BC. We have some converted railway lines with a decent surface which goes through the St Pauls area (dodgy council estate I used to live next to), and the main drag along Princess Elizabeth way has a shared path which has been painted (PE way cuts through the Hesters way area and there is no shortage of social depravation there)

The east end of the town (Charlton Kings) is by comparison well posh.


----------



## Dan B (22 Oct 2009)

Having now read the report and the minutes of a meeting that wa submitted as oral evidence to it, I have to point out that this is pretty much exactly what they did. It's the Daily Wail spin which has transformed it into "targetting pavement cyclists"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/665/665.pdf



> 1. Child pedestrians from the most deprived areas remain four times more likely to
> be killed or injured on the roads than those from the least deprived areas. The
> Department should give priority to promoting targeted road safety schemes in
> deprived areas that suffer most from child pedestrian casualties.
> ...


----------



## MartinC (22 Oct 2009)

Linf. Points of fact. The one converted railway line (which is superb, I use it frequently) goes through a mix of areas. St Pauls isn't a council estate, but is one of the poorer areas of Cheltenham, I live there now. There are cycle lanes and paths in Lansdown, Pittville and The Park which are amongst the better heeled parts of 'Nam.

I agree with the point Mr Paul's been trying to get across - he's struggled because people in this country are brought up in a car centric culture. It's a fallacy that cyclist have to be treated either as cars or pedestrians. They're neither and need to be treated as cyclists. A confident adult cyclist riding on the road is fine and so is an inexperienced youth riding carefully on the pavement.

Back to the OP. The Select Committee included in it's 7 point summary one based on a "perception" (didn't say whose) that cyclists were a risk to themselves and others and recommended action to correct this. When it looked at other more concretely established and more serious risks to vulnerable road users (i.e. Drivers behaviour) it was more muted in it's recommendations. This is clearly looking down the wrong end of the telescope


----------



## mark i (22 Oct 2009)

I cycle 14 miles home in an evening, almost all on the road. In the last 1/2 mile there is a double traffic light junction. I need to turn right onto the Solihull bypass and then right again. The problem is that the traffic on the bypass often tries to race out of the two lanes of the 1st junction. i.e. if I am the last one of a few turning right at the 1st set of lights, I now potentially have someone racing off the 1st set of lights, trying to squeeze in. It is not a situation I have any control of as I am stationary waiting to turn right, I need an alternative. There is usually 1 accident a month there. Given I feel terribly exposed I tend to go 10m on the pavement at around 4mph according to my cycle computer and give way to the traffic.

The issue on that junction is the exposed right turn.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2009)

MartinC said:


> ........ya da ya da...................some writing............ This is clearly looking down the wrong end of the telescope



But at least they have now got the telescope and are looking through it.


----------



## MartinC (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> But at least they have now got the telescope and are looking through it.



LOL. Agree with that!


----------



## GrasB (22 Oct 2009)

> 5. There is substantial evidence that fewer people would be killed and seriously injured on Great Britain's roads if this country were to put the clocks forward by one hour throughout the year. The Department should take the lead in re-examining the practice of changing clocks at the end of British Summer Time with other central Government departments.


This is something that does need to be at least tried. That said I always get the feeling that this won't improve things just spread the associated problem about a little more.


----------



## jezhiggins (22 Oct 2009)

coruskate said:


> Having now read the report and the minutes of a meeting that wa submitted as oral evidence to it, I have to point out that this is pretty much exactly what they did. It's the Daily Wail spin which has transformed it into "targetting pavement cyclists"
> 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmpubacc/665/665.pdf



It does use the word "target" when talking about cyclists, even though those cyclists are merely thought, because of the actions of some, to be a hazard merely by their presence. The recommendation is to *devise education, training and publicity measures to target such anti-social behaviour, particularly when it breaks traffic laws*. Speeding motorists who are, by definition, a hazard and breaking the law are, however, only to be subject to "influence" - *promote measures to reduce speed, including the use of speed cameras, 20 miles per hour zones and road humps, to encourage local highway authorities to adopt them and to influence the attitudes of all road users*. 


Of the 7 conclusions and recommendation, six make reasonable sense, but number 4, about cyclists doesn't. I wonder if it was insisted on by Curry, and whether other members attempted to water him down a bit. The conclusion that "i*t is surprising that the Department was unaware of a strongly held perception that, through the irresponsible behaviour of some cyclists, they are a hazard to themselves and other road users*" isn't especially damning about cyclists as a whole. The actions of "some" create a "strongly held preception" that they're a hazard, implying that the perception doesn't reflect reality. The conclusion, that cyclists should therefore be targeted, doesn't logically follow. The more logical conclusion should be something like promoting cycling as safe, in order to break down that perception.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> This is something that does need to be at least tried.



As far as I remember, when I was a small child (about 4 decades ago!) this was tried: I remember how we all got given reflective armbands because we would have to go to school as well as come home in the dark.

If I remember rightly, pedestrian casualties rose out of all proportion compared with the numbers being knocked down on dark evenings.

It was also extremely bad for morale - so many adults were not seeing daylight at all for most of the week.

Of course, that may not have happened in the south of England: for the rest of us it was an unmitigated load of cr@p.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

Just to clarify that:
At the moment, in October, Scotland's central belt, where about half the population live - sunrise & sunset today 8:01am & 5.59pm.

Put the clock forward an hour permanently - we'd all be commuting in the dark by now, until...I dunno - March?


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Cheltenham BC. We have some converted railway lines with a decent surface which goes through the St Pauls area (dodgy council estate I used to live next to), and the main drag along Princess Elizabeth way has a shared path which has been painted (PE way cuts through the Hesters way area and there is no shortage of social depravation there)
> 
> The east end of the town (Charlton Kings) is by comparison well posh.



Thanks - I never knew Cheltenham had whole areas of depraved people!  I suppose I imagined it full of posh schoolgirls and spying civil servants (at least while GCHQ was there.) I was using "west end" in a metaphorical, Pet Shop Boys kinda way. Anyway, even if it was fortuitous to some extent (the chance of where the railway track runs) it'll still be interesting to find out what the council's perception was of what they were doing. Cheers!


----------



## Dan B (22 Oct 2009)

I'm sure that depravity is no respecter of social class: de Sade was a Marquis ...


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Well, I won't argue that they do - you're probably right - but it's not at all odd that they do.
> 
> Q. What do non-cyclists say stops them cycling? A. Fear of traffic



I agree, did you follow the link which I put in, the major problem which most politicians fail to face up to....



WeeE said:


> Q. What demographic group is _more likely than not _to be traffic virgins? (ie highest proportion of non-drivers?) A The poor.



Well actually it is children under 16... 

One of the things that tends to be forgotten in these arguments about pavement cycling is the fact that many of them are just children...


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Agreed, it's not about those not being bothered to learn though, it's about increasing in confidence for those that are.
> 
> No-one is going to be encouraged to take up cycling with this method, there becomes no purpose to the ride. I've learn't what I have by commuting and going wherever, over that period my skills and confidence have increased. I quickly found that going by road is much faster than on pavement - and that was more of an incentive to try it than anything else. Tootling around side streets avoiding everything makes it seem pointless. Use the path when you feel like it on your way somewhere, so long as it is SAFE to do so, and use the road when you feel confident to do so, the rest comes naturally IMO.
> 
> I do think we are making a mistake comparing cars to bikes though, whilst they supposedly share the same traffic lanes, cars have millions of pounds worth (R&D wise) of safety for the driver, cutting edge technology. A cyclist is essentially on a design that hasn't changed any over 100 years - *except maybe a helmet and hi-viz*



Which rather misses the point, cycling, per se, it not dangerous, the problem is drivers. Restrict where they can go and how fast they can go, make them take responsibility for _their_ actions, then we will get safer roads...


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> I am more cynical than you I'm afraid: I think the majority of pavement riders will stay on the pavement forever. After all, on the pavement a bike i*s big and fast and people get out of the way - that's exactly NOT the skills you want to develop for the road* ...



No, the majority of pavement riders don't stay on the pavement forever, once they get over 17 years of age they the take to the roads, but sadly that is the way that that they drive...


----------



## HJ (22 Oct 2009)

GrasB said:


> > 5. There is substantial evidence that fewer people would be killed and seriously injured on Great Britain's roads if this country were to put the clocks forward by one hour throughout the year. The Department should take the lead in re-examining the practice of changing clocks at the end of British Summer Time with other central Government departments.
> 
> 
> 
> This is something that does need to be at least tried. That said I always get the feeling that this won't improve things just spread the associated problem about a little more.



It _has_ been tried, it failed miserable...

As I have just found WeeE has stated above...


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

> You'd do well to read the post I linked for you twice.



Read it the first time but it didn't say anything you hadn't already said in the thread. Also appeared you were talking about shared facilities, not riding on the pedestrian area.

Incidentally, I don't mind clearly marked shared facilities and if you want to lobby for more of them, go for your life. I don't think cyclists should unilaterally create them beside busy roads just because they are scared of traffic. It's selfish. And it marginalises pedestrians for the convenience of cyclists just as bad drivers marginalise cyclists for their convenience.

And in reply to your other post, yes, if you find your urban route is 90% unrideable, you shouldn't be trying to ride it.

But frankly I find it very hard to believe many urban journeys long enough to prefer bike to foot can't be achieved using side roads and the occasional push. That's not my experience and I've lived in cities all my life.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

My tuppenceworth - the best way to improve
safety
the perception of safety
street conviviality/mobility (specially for young & elderly)
air quality
noise pollution
traffic congestion​*make 20mph the default urban speed limit.
*
It is in any case a bit higher than average urban speeds, but it would stop the speed-and-brake mentality that gives rise to so much frustration and aggro - it might actually improve average urban speed.

(Most of our children under 12 don't get to do such a simple thing as make their own way to school: parents give fear of traffic as by far their biggest reason for this. They can't play in their own streets! What hell - a generation of kids live under a form of house-arrest. How did it get to this?)

Designated roads - i.e. selected major routes - could of course have higher limits.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> My tuppenceworth - the best way to improvesafety
> the perception of safety
> street conviviality/mobility (specially for young & elderly)
> air quality
> ...



Then happily get in their own cars creating yet more traffic to be _fearful_ of.


----------



## wafflycat (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> As far as I remember, when I was a small child (about 4 decades ago!) this was tried: I remember how we all got given reflective armbands because we would have to go to school as well as come home in the dark.
> 
> If I remember rightly, pedestrian casualties rose out of all proportion compared with the numbers being knocked down on dark evenings.
> 
> ...



It happened in the NE of England - yes, we were travelling to & from school/work in darkness. Yes, if I also unforget correctly, casualties rose and that was one reason for ending the experiment. I too remember the armbands!


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

ComedyPilot said:


> Then happily get in their own cars creating yet more traffic to be _fearful_ of.



Yeah - I don't get that bit (+ same goes for the childhood-asthma epidemic) but, then - I'm not a parent.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Yeah - I don't get that bit (+ same goes for the childhood-asthma epidemic) but, then - *I'm not a parent*.



I am, and I fully intend to shame the parents dropping their kids off in cars after 200m, when we have cycled almost 3 miles.


----------



## Norm (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> ...parents give fear of traffic as by far their biggest reason for this...


They are probably scared because they know how they themselves drive! 

Is driving your kids because you are scared of the traffic like fighting for peace or screwing for virginity?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Oct 2009)

I have posted this before, but it is a classic example:







Police..... Parking problem.Parking is decriminalised and therefore it is outside their jurisdiction.
City Council... As it is parked on the pavement within a designated area it is a Police problem
Police - Oh No it isn't - it is a parking issue
City Council- Oh NO it isn't see previous reply
Licensing Office - there is sufficient legislation to deal with such issues, it would be inappropriate for us to censure the driver.


Now if it was a cyclist there would be no problem.

That is what worries me - why not clamp down on ALL inappropriate behavior regardless of the vehicle


----------



## purplepolly (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> *make 20mph the default urban speed limit.*



Crikey, the traffic would have to speed up round here. Walking pace would be a more realistic speed limit.


----------



## WeeE (22 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> Well actually it is children under 16...
> 
> One of the things that tends to be forgotten in these arguments about pavement cycling is the fact that many of them are just children...



Oops - you're right, of course. I don't have kids, but I do sympathise with them when I read posts in forums by drivers moaning about "kids playing in the street" - the clear assumption is that kids shouldn't be allowed to run carelessly (ie.e carefree) up and down with their friends outside their own home the way the drivers did when they were kids.

I look at my own street on google maps - a lot of kids in my street - and I was gobsmacked. It literally puts it in perspective: there is actually more room given to cars for (parking and moving) than there is room for people (houses to live in, space to walk on).

I suppose there is already a generation of people now in their20s who were driven to school, driven to after-school things, who didn't play outside, and who never went anywhere under their own steam until their later teens...when many of them got a car themselves, courtesy of the Bank of Mum & Dad: I sometimes wonder if they _still _feel a little unsafe leaving the house except in a car.


----------



## purplepolly (22 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> One of the things that tends to be forgotten in these arguments about pavement cycling is the fact that many of them are just children...



No, that's what worries me. Parents happily let their zero-road-sense offspring cycle on the pavement while managing to forget that there's still such things as junctions. 

Last Saturday I saw two young boys (in separate incidents) cycle right across side roads without so much as looking. One of them was hidden by a group of pedestrians before the junction and almost got wiped out by a car turning into the road. Fortunately the driver was going slower than the one turning immediately before him. 

In fact, I say twice last Saturday, but actually I see this a lot, especially when I'm cycling home between 4 and 5pm. I can't help thinking that they would actually be safer on the road.


----------



## summerdays (22 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> The east end of the town (Charlton Kings) is by comparison well posh.



Charlton Kings has a cycle path running through a park that I've walked through.


Back to the original question, I'm someone who returned to cycling by cycling on the pavements - not in the centre of town but in the suburbs. Gradually I increased the number of roads that I would actually cycle on the road - now I quite happily cycle around St James Barton roundabout in the middle of town (rather than taking the underpasses). So I understand why some people start cycling on the road. 

I would like to see alot more training available for adults, hopefully the next generation of children are getting trained though whether their parents actually let them out to use those skills may be debatable.

I get annoyed at those who just do it because they don't care, can't be bothered to follow rules etc, but the parent who is accompanying their small child I can understand.

There is also a point in the legislation that actually allows you to use the "I was scared" in your defence as to why you were cycling on the pavement.

I think its very annoying that the BBC have just picked on this one small point and mis-interpreted it, when I would like the government to take action on the points that weren't mentioned in the BBC report.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

WeeE said:


> Thanks - I never knew Cheltenham had whole areas of depraved people!  I suppose I imagined it full of posh schoolgirls and spying civil servants (at least while GCHQ was there.) I was using "west end" in a metaphorical, Pet Shop Boys kinda way. Anyway, even if it was fortuitous to some extent (the chance of where the railway track runs) it'll still be interesting to find out what the council's perception was of what they were doing. Cheers!



Depraved, , I actually meant Deprived but I'll go with that  

We did once have a Gay Tory MP called Charlie Irving who was a bit of an old queen but that is for another thread 

GCHQ is still very much here and backs onto Hesters way as is the Ladies and Boys college (which are central to east side of the town)

the cycle track runs from the railway station to the town centre on one branch, and to the Racecourse on the other branch, there is cycle routes through the park as well which enables us to cover a good distance without actually having to ride in the roads at all (if we live near them), but this cycling provision is very poor when you get to the east side of the town.


----------



## dondare (22 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Quote:
> 
> Committee member and Tory MP David Curry said some were "irresponsible and arrogant road users" and said many people believed they took no notice of red lights and believed traffic cones were "not for them".
> "The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons," he said.



I once knocked over a pedestrian outside the House of Commons. It was on the road, tho'.


----------



## Stephenite (22 Oct 2009)

I dont get the big hoo-hah in Britain about cycling on the pavement. I live in Norway, and the law states: 

_ 3. Sykling på gangveg, fortau eller i gangfelt er tillatt når gangtrafikken er liten og syklingen ikke medfører fare eller er til hinder for gående. Slik sykling må ved passering av gående skje i god avstand og i tilnærmet gangfart._ 

Basically: Cycling on walkways, pavements, etc is allowed when pedestrian traffic is 'little' and cycling doesn't endander or hinder peds. When passing peds give good distance and cycle around walking speed. (_prosecuters will be gangfarted_  ) 

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## very-near (22 Oct 2009)

> Let's just give up now then shall we?
> 
> No, of course not.
> 
> ...



I am more than happy to get off and push my cycle through the town centre where directed to as I know it can freak peds out. I know you would like to see cycles as an androgynous type blend of pedestrian and road, but the reality is I know of no one who can potter along at 15mph on foot without breaking a sweat after a couple of hundred yards. 
If all cyclists were as sensible and restrained as you, then it wouldn't even be debated, but the reality is that there are many who just see themselves as wheeled pedestrians and don't stop to consider that they are moving at relatively high speeds in comparison to someone on foot.

Pedestrians have a right to be given due respect when on the path by the faster moving vehicle. We rightly ask demand this of motorists on here don't we when cycling


----------



## Norm (22 Oct 2009)

> New St in Birmingham is mainly pedestrianised. It's also a marked cycle route. It works.


Swinley Forest is thousand of acres of cycle route, which is also used by peds and dogs, and I've never seen anything other than a friendly "hello" between any members of the two groups. I use the dog walkers as an excuse to take a breather.


----------



## brokenbetty (22 Oct 2009)

> Let's just give up now then shall we?



Give _what_ up? I really don't understand your agenda. 

Some people, at some points in their cycling careers, will decide some routes are not suitable for them. That's their call. It might be a shame, but it doesn't create an obligation for the rest of us to accommodate them.

You seem to be saying that unless every route is available to every cyclist at every skill level then no one will cycle at all.



> It's about a mile and a half from my house to my parents'. About 400 yards is suitable for non-committed road cyclists. By this I mean the groups I mentioned in my linked post and others. So by your reckoning that doesn't matter, as people should walk.



If they refuse to cycle on the road and there really truly honestly isn't a quieter route (really? you live in a city and there is only one route between your house and your parents' ?) then of course they need to find alternative transport. It doesn't stop them cycling other places, and it doesn't stop them cycling that route in future when they are more confident. I don't see the problem.



> It's nearly 5 miles to work on my commute. It's 2/3 of a mile from my house to a quiet route which would get me the majority of the way there, and then there's a five minute walk at the other end that's busy and congested. You're suggesting that anyone wanting to get to the quiet, 'safer' cycle routes should walk their bike these kinds of distances?



If they want to commute from your house to your place of work by bike but aren't prepared to ride on busy roads? YES. It seems a perverse choice of transport under those circumstances, but if that's what they choose then fair enough.

I don't think the alternative, to deliberately plan a commute that includes 2/3 mile riding on the pavement, is anything other than disgustingly selfish.



> That's just two simple examples. I could give you plenty more. It's daft to suggest that if a cyclist doesn't want to have to become a road vehicle they should either have to push their bike ridiculous distances or walk.



No, it's daft to suggest that pedestrians accommodate cyclists who aren't confident in traffic but still demand to use traffic-heavy routes.

Here's an example for you. I ride up a busy, steep, 2 lane hill every morning. I see as many cyclists - adults - on the pavement than on the road. They rarely have lights or light clothes. They get in pedestrians' way and get tangled up with bus queues.

Now it may well be that if they didn't take that hill on the pavement they wouldn't commute on a bike, but I don't see the benefit to some selfish individuals outweighs the disruption and unpleasantness they cause the pedestrians, who after all do NOT have option of using the road.



> Let's stop seeing a bike as purely a road vehicle and instead accept it as the unique and essential form of transport. View it that way and *we might make some progres*s. Suggest to people that if they're not confident enough or prepared to mix with heavy traffic and *we'll get nowhere*.



Agenda again. Where exactly are "we" trying to get?

I'm certainly not trying to get somewhere where every time I walk down a pavement I have to keep looking out for bikes coming up behind me, or look both ways when leaving a shop in case the Madonna of the Bicycle Baby Carrier cannons into me.

If you want shared use paths beside busy roads then agitate for that. If you want better bike awareness from other road users then agitate for that. Don't just give anyone on two wheels carte blanche to ride down any pavement. It's a lazy solution, it's not fair and it's not necessary.

On the other hand, I think any cyclist at all is welcome to ride on the pavement as long as they weld pink stabilisers to their bike


----------



## Norm (22 Oct 2009)

Conversely, nearly all the cycle routes near me, including the main one between Windsor and Maidenhead, are converted pavements. By converting pavements (often only a few feet wide) to include cycle paths, the local council are removing the distinction, which does not make it easy to enforce anything on the foot-only paths.


----------



## purplepolly (22 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> If they want to commute from your house to your place of work by bike but aren't prepared to ride on busy roads? YES. It seems a perverse choice of transport under those circumstances, but if that's what they choose then fair enough.



But not half as perverse as choosing to drive to work on a congested road and ... increasing the congestion.


----------



## Perfect Virgo (22 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> My mom rode on the pavement most of the time when she was in her sixties and seventies.
> 
> I can remember back when I was at school following my mom home, the two local beat Bobbies waved and said a cheerie "Hello Winnie" as we rode past on the opposite pavement.
> 
> I have said before on this forum Solihull police turn a 'blind eye' to cyclists on the pavement who are not causing any disturbance. i.e. Ladies and young children, the elderly and a Middle aged man on a BSA 20 going to Sainsbury's.





wafflycat said:


> 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 motorist, cyclist & pedestrian).





ComedyPilot said:


> I think fraudulent claiming by MPs of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money is more of a concern to me than their 'concerns' about cyclists



Sensible points. There are many wrongs in British society and police resources are stretched so I believe a more pragmatic approach would represent better use of taxpayers' money (and I still pay a good deal of UK tax). Cynics might say the Public Accounts Committee's statement is a diversionary tactic, as in ComedyPilot's point above.


----------



## totallyfixed (23 Oct 2009)

Blimey, hot topic this one. Was just off to bed then like so many of us it seems, I just had to have a peekat what the latest was on CC.
I lived in Germany for 10 years, no conflict at all between all forms of transport. There was one overriding reason for this, virtually everyone owned and rode a bike at some time during the week be it for leisure or commuting.
Sharing the pavement has never been a problem over there. I know it's been said and done to death soooooo many times but we have to keep on saying it - education, understanding and bums on saddles.
Oops, just previewed what I've said, bit heavy 
'Night


----------



## brokenbetty (23 Oct 2009)

> There are longer routes, but all they do is add quiet miles to the unavoidable busy roads.



So ride the road, push the bike or find an alternative means of transport. You don't HAVE to ride on the pavement, you CHOOSE to ride on it.



> You're working under the assumption that a bicycle is purely a road vehicle, and unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike.



There are roads, and there are pavements. In the absence of a third option, the bike is a road vehicle rather than a pavement vehicle. The road is designed for wheeled traffic moving at speed, the pavement is designed for foot traffic. (You can tell by the kerbs.) A bike is a bad fit for the pavement, especially when there are people trying to walk on it.

Unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike *on a busy road. *That doesn't mean they can't be on a bike on a quieter one.



> Also look at my last response to linford. That's an example of a problem that you're saying you can't see, and in that situation I'd reverse the question and ask you what the problem is with the solution described.



The problem is you were trying to ride a bike on an unsuitable route given your constraints. I don't think the fact that you never had a complaint proves that everyone was happy to have you there.



> Why should a cyclist have to contend with congested or fast traffic to get somewhere?



Assuming they don't have any other route available, they have to contend with the traffic because the traffic is there. Why should a pedestrian have to contend with cyclists on the pavement?



> You're not reading the post. I've described the situation to you -having unavoidable busy roads between home and a quieter route- and you're claiming that it's selfish. That doesn't make sense.



I am reading the post. I've said to choose a route intending to ride 2/3 of a mile of it on the pavement is selfish. It doesn't make sense to you because you won't accept that cyclists on the pavement are unpleasant for other users.



> Here You're talking about the idiots. I'm talking about responsible cycling. Yup, inconsiderate cyclists are selfish. So you accept that considerate cyclists are not. That being the case, it shouldn't matter to you where they cycle.



A considerate pavement cyclist beside a busy road - your justification for being on the pavement - would cycle at walking pace. So they might as well push - it's just as fast, more controllable at that speed, and less intimidating for pedestrians. Frankly, it's just plain courtesy.



> You're talking about inconsiderate cyclists again. If you're following that thread, you'll be for banning pedestrians from pavements because some wear ipods or are texting and stumble into you.



I'm talking about my experience of cyclists on the pavement. The paragons you think are the norm are strangely absent from my area of the world. This is possibly because anyone who is truly that considerate would get off and push as a matter of course.

Weirdly enough, I object more to being ridden down by a few kg of fast moving metal than a bump from a pedestrian who tripped over.



> I've never done that. Not on this thread, nor anywhere else on this forum. If you disagree, please quote the relevant parts.



You've made a distinction between "idiots" who are banned and "considerate" cyclists who are welcome on the pavement but given no practical way of how this would be achieved or indeed defined. It's carte blanche until you clarify how it would actually work.

Again, I have NEVER seen a considerate pavement cyclist.


----------



## summerdays (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> Unless someone is capable of riding or willing to ride in busy traffic then they shouldn't be on a bike *on a busy road. *That doesn't mean they can't be on a bike on a quieter one.


There are problems with avoiding busy roads in large urban cities - there are usually large arterial routes coming out of the centre that inevitably you will need to cross at some point, some of them have very little pedestrian traffic on them.



brokenbetty said:


> A considerate pavement cyclist beside a busy road - your justification for being on the pavement - would cycle at walking pace. So they might as well push - it's just as fast, more controllable at that speed, and less intimidating for pedestrians. Frankly, it's just plain courtesy.
> 
> I'm talking about my experience of cyclists on the pavement. The paragons you think are the norm are strangely absent from my area of the world. This is possibly because anyone who is truly that considerate would get off and push as a matter of course.
> 
> Again, I have NEVER seen a considerate pavement cyclist.



I do see considerate pavement cyclists, and in one of my routes I have to share a path/lane with them. I do get off in the narrow path (between buildings - you can touch both sides of the path at the same time) if there are pedestrians though I actually am narrower and less likely to bump into them when on the bike. 

Then I cycle slowly behind them in the lane below 4mph usually. Many of the parents start shouting for their children to get out of my way - and I usually reply - don't worry I'm fine. I quite enjoy cycling at their pace and recognise that we share that space - cars occasionally use it too. It is still easier to cycle in the lane as I usually have a pannier which can be heavy, and I find the bike is more stable with me on it than pushing it.

I think it would be nice to cycle occasionally on the pavements if done sensibly in a European sort of way - but I'm happy enough if chatting with a friend on the way home to cycle slowly on the road beside her. If a car comes along I can always pull over. Sometimes I do walk on the pavement beside her too - depends on how heavy the load is.

I did see a weird one the other day... in a posher bit of town I was on the road and met someone on the pavement who smiled - middle aged wearing cyclists looking like a proper touring type cyclist rather than a chav. I couldn't understand what he was doing on the path as he looked confident and there wasn't a single car on the road at all.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

mark i said:


> I cycle 14 miles home in an evening, almost all on the road. In the last 1/2 mile there is a double traffic light junction. I need to turn right onto the Solihull bypass and then right again. The problem is that the traffic on the bypass often tries to race out of the two lanes of the 1st junction. i.e. if I am the last one of a few turning right at the 1st set of lights, I now potentially have someone racing off the 1st set of lights, trying to squeeze in. It is not a situation I have any control of as I am stationary waiting to turn right, I need an alternative. There is usually 1 accident a month there. Given I feel terribly exposed I tend to go 10m on the pavement at around 4mph according to my cycle computer and give way to the traffic.
> 
> The issue on that junction is the exposed right turn.



Do you mean 'Maid's Cross'? Hampton Lane and Marsh Lane.

I live 300 yds from that junction.

When I get the BSA 20 out to visit Morrisons, I ride on the pavement.

I go round from Hampton Lane, across Yew Tree, across the by-pass, down the sidewalk crossing Beechnut and School and onto the Warwick Rd past Solihull School. Then I cross Warwick Rd at the T Lights right in front of Morrisons.

The traffic there is aweful at 3:30 till about 5:00 every weekday evening. I usualy get to the Warwick Road before the cars waiting in Hampton Lane to get onto the by-pass.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Do you mean 'Maid's Cross'? Hampton Lane and Marsh Lane.
> 
> I live 300 yds from that junction.
> 
> ...



When my Son and I ride to Knowle, we ride on the sidewalk, down Marsh Lane to the Warwick Road. across the special bike crossing opposite the Park and then ride the Old Warwick Road to the footbridge over the M42.

Then we ride to Knowle along the sidewalk past Copt Heath Golf Club.

Peds move aside. They know the M42 junction is a nightmare for cyclists.

PS BikeHike, Bikely et al WILL NOT use the footbridge. There are many other 'dual use' paths they don't know about, so they're crap.


----------



## jonredhornet (23 Oct 2009)

"Occam's Razor" That's one excellent user name.

Using occam's razor in this situation, I'd reduce the situation to the following.

Make the Police uphold the law proportionately, in other words target those vehicles which cause the most suffering in our society. If a cyclist makes an error, usually it is only themselves who come off worse. If a heavier vehicle makes an error, the consequences are proportionally worse.

I'm all in favour of making the effort to uphold the traffic laws and reduce bad cycling and bad road craft by all road users.


----------



## rh100 (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> When my Son and I ride to Knowle, we ride on the sidewalk, down Marsh Lane to the Warwick Road. across the special bike crossing opposite the Park and then ride the Old Warwick Road to the footbridge over the M42.
> 
> Then we ride to Knowle along the sidewalk past Copt Heath Golf Club.
> 
> ...



I know where you mean, took me a while to find that bridge first time I used it. There is a cycle path on both sides on the way into Knowle, but I did notice a bit of a weird, if not dangerous part on the first RAB, it joins the pavement then dips back onto the road right into a bus stop if I remember correctly.

I've come from Morrisons a couple of times now, turn right at the light's then left, then over the bypass and onto YewTree/Damson Parkway - it's not an easy one is it, too many people racing off the lights - there's no way I would go along that bypass.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> the pavement is designed for foot traffic. (You can tell by the kerbs.)



Now hold on.

The 'new' way of designing pavements is to accommodate invalid scooters.

This has made it much easier for me to cycle to Morrisons.


----------



## brokenbetty (23 Oct 2009)

> I didn't say that anyone _has to _ride on the pavement.
> 
> And I've given you several examples of where there is no quiet alternative. Living in a big city, I could give you a pretty comprehensive list.



If there is no quiet alternative and you refuse to take the busy road and you refuse to push your bike, you will have to accept that taking that particular route by bike is not an option for you. 



> And there's the assumption that I've mentioned. Stop seeing it like that and you might become a bit enlightened.



My "assumption" is that bikes are not welcome in the area reserved for pedestrians. You assert that they are. I give your assertion no more validity than you give my "assumption"



> There are plenty of pavements, and the majority of main road pavements are like this, where there's more than enough room for considerate cyclists to mix with considerate pedestrians. Reinforced by the fact that LAs have taken to painting white lines down the middle of them.



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"

Without the white line, the cyclist is saying "I've decided I am ok on this pavement. If you don't agree, take it up with me"

The second is aggressive and selfish. If you don't like the law then change it, don't just ignore it. It's not a pick-n-mix!



> Please read what I'm writing.



I read it. I don't agree with it. That doesn't mean I'm not listening or that I don't understand. I understand what you say but I think you are wrong.



> There is no quieter alternative.



Then it's not a suitable route for that cyclist



> And again, you're focussing on idiot cyclists. Get over that and you see things differently.



Well, yes, if I assume we are talking about imaginary cyclists instead of the real ones I experience every day, I guess I would see things differently.

Pedestrians report again and again that cyclists on the pavement intimidate them. That's the fact that started this thread. This is the actual experience of actual pedestrians encountering actual cyclists.



> Well no, they wouldn't would they? It depends on what else is on the pavement. They'd ride at an appropriate speed. Plus, rolling 500 yards downhill at walking pace is far easier than having to walk a bike the same distance.



You know, that sounds a lot like the argument that drivers shouldn't be subjected to speed limits because left to their own devices they will always choose the appropriate speed for the conditions.

The vast majority of inconsiderate driving does not result in an accident. This leads the perpetrators to believe that they are good drivers and that the cyclists who complain are just whinging.

I don't see why you think inconsiderate cyclists are any more aware of their problem than inconsiderate drivers.

Cyclists are not a higher form of life blessed with moral certitude and subtle perception. They are people on bikes, and will make the same errors of judgement as people do the rest of the time.



> You'll always get idiots. To allow them to spoil it for everyone is defeatest.



To ignore the problem because it isn't how you want the world to work is naive. Giving catre blanche to ride on any pavement without working out first how you will make sure pedestrians do not feel intimidated, unsafe and marginalised is both unfair and counterproductive.

Pedestrians are telling you that today, right now, they DO feel pavement cycling is a problem. If you want the right to ride on pavements you need to sort that out.



> then you either live in a very antisocial area, or you don't get out much.



LOL - so in this thread I have been accused of living in a leafy surburb and an antisocial area, of being a super-confident cyclist who doesn't appreciate the problems and of not getting out much! Confused much on the pro-pavement side?

For what it's worth, I live in London zone 3 and commute to work by bike every day.

I suspect the reason I see more antisocial cycling than you is because I pay a lot of attention to how pedestrians react to cyclists.

Right. We clearly aren't getting anywhere here and I've no doubt it's very dull for anyone who is still reading. I'm going to leave it here. I think you've made all your points and they don't convince me. Feel free to have the last word.

Liz


----------



## rh100 (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> So ride the road, push the bike or find an alternative means of transport. You don't HAVE to ride on the pavement, you CHOOSE to ride on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If pavements are for foot traffic only, as you seem to be implying, and that cycles and peds are not suited to being on the same path, then why are so many pavements converted to cycle paths if it's so dangerous. There are a few around here that are not even segregated, not that the painted line makes any difference mind. So, the pavements have been converted to a shared cycle path, simply with the addition of a couple of signs and the odd painted line. So if that is all that is required, then any path (within reason) can be safely used by cycles also, surely. Apart from the signage - what is the difference?

I've seen lot's of considerate pavement cyclists, aswell as inconsiderate one's - I've also seen both types on the road - location makes no difference IMO.


----------



## Dan B (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> There are roads, and there are pavements. In the absence of a third option, the bike is a road vehicle rather than a pavement vehicle. The road is designed for wheeled traffic moving at speed, the pavement is designed for foot traffic.


And which do you think the more important part of this distinction: the wheels, or the speed? In your answer you may want to consider pushchairs, invalid carriages, and 10k runners in training


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

> Sorry, I thought I'd made myself clear, especially as others understand what I'm saying. Which is not that every route should be available to every cyclist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the way it is, it is no good bleating about it not being fair. You have to live within the limitations which come from buying a house and working in the 2nd biggest city in the UK. 

Comparitively, there are many places we will not hack the horses even though we have a legal right to do so. They are not legally allowed on the pavement, and the traffic is too heavy to risk it. We find another way, or box them and take them to a bridleway to ride out from (this is the primary reason I got the 4x4 in the first place  )

Stay off the Pavement when cycling if you don't havea legal right to do this MrP. You are a danger to others with your selfish behaviour.


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> If there is no quiet alternative and you refuse to take the busy road and you refuse to push your bike, you will have to accept that taking that particular route by bike is not an option for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quality post Liz 

All I can say to MrP is   

Now push your cycle when you don't have a legal right to ride it you law breaker you  . You are a danger to others MrP and have demonstrated that the only laws you want to see enforced are the ones which suit you.

This sanctimonious attitude you have shown for so long has come back to bite you in the arse


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Quality post Liz
> 
> All I can say to MrP is
> 
> ...



And also MrP, I've seen you wheelstanding across Victoria Square and outside the Rep', so STOP IT and get that thing down the Queensway tunnel at 40 mph with the motorists like the rest of us.


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

> That's a very defeatest attitude.
> 
> *It is a realists attitude. Of all the things which has scared our pony on the road was a bobble hatted roadie by the racecourse who got too close and didn't slow down.*
> 
> ...



Do you mean giving you carte blanch to terrorise peds on pavements which you have no legal right of way when you cycle commute ?


----------



## rh100 (23 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Do you mean giving you carte blanch to terrorise peds on pavements which you have no legal right of way when you cycle commute ?



*Quote: Over 4 milliion people take part in horse riding in the UK each year. The equestrian sector is worth £4.3 billion in the UK alone. Just because you don't see many horse riders in the centre of Brum doesn't mean that this is a minority activity. *

And how much of that is used as a means of practical transport, rather than a pastime?


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> *Quote: Over 4 milliion people take part in horse riding in the UK each year. The equestrian sector is worth £4.3 billion in the UK alone. Just because you don't see many horse riders in the centre of Brum doesn't mean that this is a minority activity. *
> 
> And how much of that is used as a means of practical transport, rather than a pastime?



I cycle for leisure, I drive and ride a m/cycle for practical transport. Are you suggesting I shoud stop cycling because I don't use it to get to work ?


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

> No they haven't. And I'm asking you what you think.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you horseriding is a pretty minority activity. It's not a realistic and workable practical alternative form of transport. And as such, there's less of a drive to get horse tracks in urban areas.
> ...



You know I keep horses. There is a chronic enough shortage of suitable hacking at the best of times. I have to box and transport across the far side of town to get to decent hacking in the winter as it gets waterlogged where we keep them.


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> It is also a criminal offense to throw a sweetie wrapper out of the window of a car.
> 
> If that sweetie wrapper was to hit a pedestrian and cause irrepairable, life changing injury, would the filthy B in the car be chased down and imprisoned?
> 
> ...



Whatever you are smoking this morning is playing with your mind Jim


----------



## rh100 (23 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> I cycle for leisure, I drive and ride a m/cycle for practical transport. Are you suggesting I shoud stop cycling because I don't use it to get to work ?



Erm.. I don't think I said that did I? I asked you a question. You mentioned how big the equestrian market is, but it won't make a difference how big it is unless that mode of transport is used as a practical means of transport, which it clearly isn't. 

Cycles are a practical way of replacing cars - not just for commuting either - it's replaced one of mine, therefore there is a reason to look to improve/change ways people are able to cycle everywhere.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

We know riding a bicycle ( adult ) on the footpath is illegal.
So is dropping litter.

If a pedestrian objects to the cyclist on the pavement, there will either be a word of annoyance and an appology, or there may be an exchange of a few rude words. But when the two parties have gone their seperate ways, there is nothing left but memories.

Litter, on the other hand, remains where it falls ( contrary to my story ) and eventually accumulates to an unhealthy and dangerous state. Fly tipping an example. Supermarket carrier bags stuffed into hedgerows. Half eaten Chicken Vindaloo still in its foil tray. Chip papers thrown onto front lawns.

There is 'dog fouling'. It happens, and when our kids step in some dog droppings, it is more of a concern than that chap on his bike who rode past on the pavement.

Motorists repairing their cars on the road outside where they live. This is not allowed. They leave oil slicks and patches of rough tarmac where petrol has dissolved the asphalt.
The oil slicks are a danger to pedestrians and cyclists alike. 
And I bet he tipped the old oil down a drain in the next street.


So on the balance of things, is a cyclist on the pavement a subject worth getting 'fussed up' about?


----------



## very-near (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> We know riding a bicycle ( adult ) on the footpath is illegal.
> So is dropping litter.
> 
> If a pedestrian objects to the cyclist on the pavement, there will either be a word of annoyance and an appology, or there may be an exchange of a few rude words. But when the two parties have gone their seperate ways, there is nothing left but memories.
> ...



Yes


----------



## HJ (23 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> ...
> That is what worries me - why not clamp down on ALL inappropriate behavior regardless of the vehicle



+1


----------



## Trevrev (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> We know riding a bicycle ( adult ) on the footpath is illegal.
> So is dropping litter.
> 
> If a pedestrian objects to the cyclist on the pavement, there will either be a word of annoyance and an appology, or there may be an exchange of a few rude words. But when the two parties have gone their seperate ways, there is nothing left but memories.
> ...




Well said.......!!!


----------



## HJ (23 Oct 2009)

> Sorry, I thought I'd made myself clear, especially as others understand what I'm saying. Which is *not that every route should be available to every cyclist.*



Why not??


----------



## summerdays (23 Oct 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> If there is no quiet alternative and you refuse to take the busy road and you refuse to push your bike, you will have to accept that taking that particular route by bike is not an option for you.



I have one place in Bristol that I'm not keen on - 3 lanes wide, up hill gyratory (?spelling) system. Two of the lanes are solid traffic waiting for the lights to change, meaning the left lane - the one I'm in is the only lane moving. I can cycle up there - but very slowly - about 6 mph on a main route out of Bristol, with lorries breathing down your neck unable to pass because of the traffic in the other 2 lanes. I did try on the pavement - as nobody was walking on it - but I'm not really an illegal pavement fan for myself, even with Paul Boateng's comments:


> "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."



I have solved my problem by finding an alternative route with a legal cycle path through a park - but if it was night time I wouldn't use it. Luckily I don't have to work over that direction very often. But it means I share the path with pedestrians that way too - probably more pedestrians as its in a park rather than next to a busy road..




brokenbetty said:


> I suspect the reason I see more antisocial cycling than you is because I pay a lot of attention to how pedestrians react to cyclists.



Maybe the attitude of London pavement cyclists is more agressive than elsewhere - certainly that used to be the case of London drivers?

There are good and bad pavement cyclists - whether they should be doing it is a separate point. 

I use share use pavements such as in the town centre and know that you have to reduce your speed on there. I don't shout if a pedestrian changes direction and walks across my path, just apply the brakes as needed. Those sort of areas are nice places to exchange a smile with a fellow commuter, and escape the concentration on the car for a few moments.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

This is very spooky.

( If you're reading this, chap, I've no objection ).

I rode from Solihull to Birmingham this afternoon to pick up some new spectacles. I was on my 36lb Apollo County, 68" top ratio.

On the trip, I rode from the Redhill Tavern ( A45 Coventry Rd ) to the Birmingham City football ground. A distance of about 3 miles through Small Heath, with a pavement cyclist alongside me. He went across the ped crossings and the sideroads without a hoot of concern. He must do it every day.

At the traffic signals where Cattel Rd joins Cov' Rd, I waited at the red for him. The lights turned green before he was back with me.

Observation 1. Riding on the pavement is no faster than the road. That includes the no-stop approach to TLs and T juncs.

Observation 2. Motorists in sideroads blocked HIS way, not mine.

Observation 3. No peds complained.

Conclusion. There was no objection from any Ped or other road user, but the pavement cyclist's progress was more complicated, obstucted and slower.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Conclusion. There was no objection from any Ped or other road user, but the pavement cyclist's progress was more complicated, obstucted and slower.



And considerably more dangerous, though it might take many thousands of similar and measured journeys before that became apparent.


----------



## rh100 (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> This is very spooky.
> 
> ( If you're reading this, chap, I've no objection ).
> 
> ...



Yes, you get the right of way on the main carriageway (obviously), crossing from kerb to kerb is a pain as your way gets blocked, this is a problem with a marked cycle path also. A lot of drivers will give you the room to get past.

This was a motivator for me to use the road instead where able, being able to keep the momentum up.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> And considerably more dangerous, though it might take many thousands of similar and measured journeys before that became apparent.



The only way, as I saw, the pavement cyclist's journey would be more dangerous, is if a 6 foot skinhead stepped in the guy's path and punched him in the jaw.

And of course the two window fitters with the sheet of glass.


----------



## jimboalee (23 Oct 2009)

Oh, I have to mention. On that journey, I scraped my handlebar end up the side of another vehicle.

A Recovery low-loader. The driver never noticed so PLEASE keep this quiet.


----------



## HJ (23 Oct 2009)

> I can think of some examples where we could let them off. I wouldn't fancy cycling on a motorway for example, however much cycling provision is installed.



I live in a civilised place that doesn't have a motorway running through the middle of it...


----------



## BentMikey (23 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> The only way, as I saw, the pavement cyclist's journey would be more dangerous, is if a 6 foot skinhead stepped in the guy's path and punched him in the jaw.
> 
> And of course the two window fitters with the sheet of glass.



Unfortunately not. This sort of thing is why:



jimboalee said:


> He went across the ped crossings and the sideroads without a hoot of concern.



Junction danger and complexity - just look how much more convoluted his route was, by your own words.


----------



## Trevrev (24 Oct 2009)

Since i've been on this forum, it seems red light jumpers and pavement riders seem to piss alot of you off. Why?? Just let people do what they want to do. If they get killed jumping a red light.....Not your problem.........If someones riding on the path, why should it bother you !!! It gives cyclists a bad name i hear you shout !!! So what !!! Get on with your own life and forget what everyone else does............It'll all turn out ok in the end for you......Less stress and all. 
Not alot bothers me........Even cars parked in cycle lanes...........I don't care. They have to park somewhere......they do pay road tax after all.........LOL.....
Reading this stuff does make me laugh.......


----------



## benborp (24 Oct 2009)

Trevrev said:


> ...!!! It gives cyclists a bad name i hear you shout !!! So what !!! Get on with your own life and forget what everyone else does............It'll all turn out ok in the end for you...



Having been a victim of a serious assault that was justified with the words "I know what cyclists are like" and deal with an investigating officer in another incident that told me cyclists shouldn't be on the roads and that they bring everything on themselves, I can tell you that other peoples attitudes and perceptions regarding cyclists can have quite a concrete effect upon the lives of others.


----------



## Stephenite (24 Oct 2009)

Fair enough point, Trevrev. Being a hairy-arsed bloke meself it doesn't bother me what people do as long as they respect others. And in this case it would be: if cycling on the pavement - give way to anyone on foot.

If that means you're smiling and saying excuse me every 10 secs, then you're being a nob - get off and push it. If you scare anyone you are a nob too.

The law in the UK states it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. That is ridiculous and should be changed, as everyone who has rode a bike has cycled on the pavement at sometime, and most people often do as it's safe and convenient. As almost everyone can ride a bike almost everyone has rode on pavements.

Bikes are not cars, horses or HGV's. They are a unique vehicle. Get with it, people.


----------



## Vikeonabike (24 Oct 2009)

Stephenite said:


> The law in the UK states it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. That is ridiculous and should be changed, as everyone who has rode a bike has cycled on the pavement at sometime, and most people often do as it's safe and convenient. As almost everyone can ride a bike almost everyone has rode on pavements.
> 
> Bikes are not cars, horses or HGV's. They are a unique vehicle. Get with it, people.



Whilst agreeing with most of Stephenites origial post, I take issue with the lat two paragraphs. Law preventing cycling on pavements is not ridiculous, as long as it enforced in the way it was originally intended. If the law is not there a police officer will not have the power to ticket somebody that is cycling recklessly on the pavement, causing harrasment or distress too pedestrians etc. It (the law) should never be enforced for cycling on a pavement per se. 

Bikes are not unique vehicles, when ridden by idiots or in an unroadworthy condition then they are dangerous. 

If we want safer cycling in this country then it has to be promoted and seen as a viable means of transport / recreation as it is in other countries.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Since i've been on this forum, it seems red light jumpers and pavement riders seem to piss alot of you off. Why?? Just let people do what they want to do. If they get killed jumping a red light.....Not your problem.........If someones riding on the path, why should it bother you !!! It gives cyclists a bad name i hear you shout !!! So what !!! Get on with your own life and forget what everyone else does............It'll all turn out ok in the end for you......Less stress and all.
> Not alot bothers me........Even cars parked in cycle lanes...........I don't care. They have to park somewhere......they do pay road tax after all.........LOL.....
> Reading this stuff does make me laugh.......




I am hoping that this is irony!

I really do.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2009)

If it's not irony, it's not the shining light of intelligence, that's for sure.


----------



## purplepolly (24 Oct 2009)

Stephenite said:


> The law in the UK states it's illegal to cycle on the pavement. That is ridiculous and should be changed



Excellent idea. Then the average driver will no longer tolerate having to overtake cyclists and, worse still, wait 5 seconds to overtake a cyclist safely when said cyclist could be cycling perfectly legally on the pavement.

Then it'll be drivers trying to run cyclists off the road and screaming "GET ON THE F£CK%NG PAVEMENT WHERE YOU BELONG AND GET OUT OF MY F£CK%NG WAY".


----------



## 007fair (24 Oct 2009)

Did n't read the whole thread so probably repeating 

common sense is the issue here not the letter of the law Anyone who thinks a young person should risk death riding on the fast busy dual carriageway rather than the wide fairly empty pavement is wrong 
If the pavement is narrow and busy then if the cyclist cannot use the road they should puch the bike

In Glasgow they have _attempted_ to provide off road cycle routes But many of these are ON walkways used by peds (underpasses, through parks etc) 

But the big issue the provision for safe cycling routes 
I was speaking to a guy from Germany and he said that you could almost cycle from one side of the country to the other on good cycle routes never having to use the roads In this coutry we are at least 30 years behind. I cannot vouch for this .. just taking him at his word!

The MP 's should address that not over the black and white of pavement cycling


----------



## Trevrev (24 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> I am hoping that this is irony!
> 
> I really do.





Just live and let live.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Oct 2009)

HJ said:


> I live in a civilised place that doesn't have a motorway running through the middle of it...



Thank F**k for the M40.

If the M40 wasn't there, I'd have thousands of tons of articulated trucks whizzing past my right ear.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Oct 2009)

Bentmikey.

Take a closer look at the Streetview piccie you posted on the 'on streetview' thread.

Off in the distance is a chap on his bike about to ride across the grass in the park.

You should have quickly jumped off your 'bent, run after him and shouted loudly "DON'T RIDE ON THE GRASS, YOU MIGHT HIT A BASEBALL PLAYER".


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Bentmikey.
> 
> Take a closer look at the Streetview piccie you posted on the 'on streetview' thread.
> 
> ...



I have no idea what you are on about!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2009)

Trevrev said:


> Just live and let live.



Or in this case let me live and potentially let others live with a diminished and compromised quality of life.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2009)

> I can think of some examples where we could let them off. I wouldn't fancy cycling on a motorway for example, however much cycling provision is installed.



There was a quality argument that the hard shoulder on the motorway is in fact potentially a better design model than the 12" facility on an urban dual carriageway!


----------



## rh100 (24 Oct 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> There was a quality argument that the hard shoulder on the motorway is in fact potentially a better design model than the 12" facility on an urban dual carriageway!



Let's hope this post is ironic 

Have you ever been on a hard shoulder and felt the turbulence from passing vehicles, or had HGV's drifting over the line towards you? On a bike? No thanks.


----------



## J4CKO (24 Oct 2009)

There is cycling on the pavement, that is making your journey exclusively on pavement, occasionally foraying onto the road, usually with no lights in the dark, in a hoody on a rattly old MTB or a BMX with no brakes, possibly a Raleigh twenty with a home made box on the back.

Also, there is moving a bike on the pavement, you can do it, at walking pace, unclip and make it clear by going at walking pace that you are observing others safety, I do this for one 50 yard stretch to avoid an evil junction, I have tried this junction and car drivers give you no quarter so I have no qualms, I cause nobody any problems as effectively I am a cyclist with a bike under me, not cycling, not doing 15/20 mph like I would normally, proper cyclists dont do anything that endangers peds, it peds themselves, but on bikes.


----------



## jimboalee (24 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Let's hope this post is ironic
> 
> Have you ever been on a hard shoulder and felt the turbulence from passing vehicles, or had HGV's drifting over the line towards you? On a bike? No thanks.



I've ridden a few 'National speed limit' A road dual carriageways.

The turbulance from passing trucks is a welcome help.


----------



## HJ (24 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Thank F**k for the M40.
> 
> If the M40 wasn't there, I'd have thousands of tons of articulated trucks whizzing past my right ear.



Ach, you should try cycling in Aberdeen then...


----------



## Norm (24 Oct 2009)

Vikeonabike said:


> Law preventing cycling on pavements is not ridiculous, as long as it enforced in the way it was originally intended.


Sadly, as with much legislation in this God-forsaken land, the original intention means squat all to the power-crazed who enforce a law for the sake of enforcing the law. I got pulled up a few weeks ago in a quiet ped zone, I was cycling the same speed that people were walking but I still got some young punk in a uniform trying to throw the book at me. 

Intelligence and logic seem to be missing from the syllabus in Hendon and Sulhamstead.


----------



## wafflycat (24 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I've ridden a few 'National speed limit' A road dual carriageways.
> 
> The turbulance from passing trucks is a welcome help.



Having ridden dual carriageways (A11, A47) I have to say the experience was not bad as due to the presence of the extra lane, overtaking traffic gives wide berth. You just have to be clear and assertive about your cycling, especially in terms of road positioning. Indeed, most of the roads round me are national speed limit and are NOT dual carriageway but are winding country lanes. IME those ones have a danger all of their own as traffic can go by too close and at too fast a speed for a winding country lane. Never mind the fact the road is narrow, winding & has reduced sight lines... the sped limit is 60, so as close to that and above it too many motorists will go.. I've also found that in my neck of the woods, the HGV drivers are some of the most courteous drivers about, giving me loads of room, overtaking only when safe to do so, show loads of patience, and generally living up to the 'knights of the road' adage.


----------



## marinyork (24 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> Sadly, as with much legislation in this God-forsaken land, the original intention means squat all to the power-crazed who enforce a law for the sake of enforcing the law. I got pulled up a few weeks ago in a quiet ped zone, I was cycling the same speed that people were walking but I still got some young punk in a uniform trying to throw the book at me.
> 
> Intelligence and logic seem to be missing from the syllabus in Hendon and Sulhamstead.



I get pulled up quite a few times every year for cycling in a contraflow cycle lane (yes I was going the correct way). I've even got queried on a shared use area where the signs have been greatly clarified after myself and a few other people pointed out the problems the police might have there .

As for dual carriageway national speed limit A roads, I don't really have a problem with them, biggest problem is drivers doing the ton on the ones I don't go on very often. At that kind of speed there is very little margin for error with other traffic around. Well I say little trouble, that said one often gets honks from horns on 40/50/60/70 DCs.


----------



## hackbike 666 (24 Oct 2009)

What I see of cycling on the pavement in this country is it cannot be generally be done responsibly.How many times have a been a pedestrian and had some idiot on a bike passed me too closely at speed on a bike on the pavement?

Christ,we can't even follow the rules of the road so what chance have we got on the pavement.

I support plod on this one if they pull up cyclists for cycling on the pavement.


----------



## rh100 (24 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I've ridden a few 'National speed limit' A road dual carriageways.
> 
> *The turbulance from passing trucks is a welcome help*.



I'll take your word on that one Jimbo 



wafflycat said:


> Having ridden dual carriageways (A11, A47) I have to say the experience was not bad as due to the presence of the extra lane, overtaking traffic gives wide berth. You just have to be clear and assertive about your cycling, especially in terms of road positioning. Indeed, most of the roads round me are national speed limit and are NOT dual carriageway but are winding country lanes. IME those ones have a danger all of their own as traffic can go by too close and at too fast a speed for a winding country lane. Never mind the fact the road is narrow, winding & has reduced sight lines... the sped limit is 60, so as close to that and above it too many motorists will go.. I've also found that in my neck of the woods, the HGV drivers are some of the most courteous drivers about, giving me loads of room, overtaking only when safe to do so, show loads of patience, and generally living up to the 'knights of the road' adage.



I've not had too much experience of being passed by HGV's whilst on my bike to be honest. I was thinking more of my experience driving on motorways (and being stationary on the hard shoulder). I don't know the statistics, but I used to do a lot of driving at night, and it was always when on the motorway I would notice that occasionaly a HGV would start wondering across the solid line onto the hard shoulder - motorways are a whole different ball game with how the traffic behaves IMO.


----------



## Vikeonabike (25 Oct 2009)

Norm said:


> Sadly, as with much legislation in this God-forsaken land, the original intention means squat all to the power-crazed who enforce a law for the sake of enforcing the law. I got pulled up a few weeks ago in a quiet ped zone, I was cycling the same speed that people were walking but I still got some young punk in a uniform trying to throw the book at me.
> 
> Intelligence and logic seem to be missing from the syllabus in Hendon and Sulhamstead.




Sometimes it is not the fault of the power crazed law enforcers. Since the introduction of Policing Panels the police are at the mercy of the priorities set by the local population. If one of those priorities is nasty cyclists riding on pavements then the local policing team will have to deal with the issue and then report back in 3 months time on the results of that issue. If the Public require evidence...176 tickets issued to persons cycling on pavements is evidence. Unfortunately these are mainly handed out to locals who then complain to the police about heavy handed enforcement in the area!
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Oct 2009)

Vikeonabike said:


> Sometimes it is not the fault of the power crazed law enforcers. Since the introduction of Policing Panels the police are at the mercy of the priorities set by the local population. If one of those priorities is nasty cyclists riding on pavements then the local policing team will have to deal with the issue and then report back in 3 months time on the results of that issue. If the Public require evidence...176 tickets issued to persons cycling on pavements is evidence. Unfortunately these are mainly handed out to locals who then complain to the police about heavy handed enforcement in the area!
> *Damned if you do, damned if you don't*.



Some people can't see the wood for the trees though.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2009)

We had a local Councillor who as part of her role on teh Road Safety Committee organised a clampdown on local kids cycling to school on the pavements, but didn't see a need to deal with the 50 or 60 illegally parked cars that fill the same pavements whenthe same school has a car boot sale.


----------



## very-near (25 Oct 2009)

I can't believe I am seeing so many so called law abiding people posting on here that they break the law with impunity citing all sorts of feeble justification, whilst in other threads, they demonise others for their indiscretions.

Pot and kettle....


----------



## purplepolly (25 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> I can't believe I am seeing so many so called law abiding people posting on here that they break the law with impunity citing all sorts of feeble justification, whilst in other threads, they demonise others for their indiscretions.



Even the police have joined the dark side and differentiate between inconsiderate and considerate cyclists. Personally I find it intolerable that because of this they might actually be spending their time dealing with burglars and muggers and people doing 70 in 30 zones.



Vikeonabike said:


> Law preventing cycling on pavements is not ridiculous, as long as it enforced in the way it was originally intended. If the law is not there a police officer will not have the power to ticket somebody that is cycling recklessly on the pavement, causing harrasment or distress too pedestrians etc.It (the law) should never be enforced for cycling on a pavement per se. .


----------



## Crankarm (25 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Quote:
> 
> Committee member and Tory MP David Curry said some were "irresponsible and arrogant road users" and said many people believed they took no notice of red lights and believed traffic cones were "not for them".
> "*The only time I have been knocked down in my life was by a cyclist going like a bat out of hell outside the House of Commons," he said*.
> ...



It was Dave his boss ................. or Boris .


----------



## very-near (25 Oct 2009)

> That's right. If people aren't bothered about someone riding considerately on a bit of pavement is ok then they should also condone murder, otherwise they're hypocrites.
> 
> The logic of linf.



Will you listen to yourself MrP. You expect everyone around you to obey all the traffic laws whilst you break them brazenly and with impunity.

Since when has exceeding the speed limit on an empty road been classed as Murder ?

The problem with pavement cyclists like yourself is that you don't want to proceed at walking pace, you want to go at cycling pace. 
When someone steps off the pavement, they are looking for cars, motorcycles, cyclists, buses, and (usually) exercise a bit of care when changing direction.

When on the pavement, they expect others to be moving at a similar pace and are so naturally (and rightly) off their guard - and then they get bowled over by a sanctimonious knob who is too damned lazy or whatever justification they can come up with to get off and walk.

Get off the pavement before you injure some innocent pedestrians MrP, you are a danger to those around you when you ride on them - or set off 5 minutes earlier and walk these areas.

Oh, never mind, you won't take any notice anyway. It is only someone else's life you are gambling with


----------



## very-near (25 Oct 2009)

User3143 said:


> Far out, I never knew I was gambling with someones life every time I ride on the pavement. (*which I don't*)



Then you have nothing to worry about - as you were Lee


----------



## rh100 (25 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> Will you listen to yourself MrP. You expect everyone around you to obey all the traffic laws whilst you break them brazenly and with impunity.
> 
> Since when has exceeding the speed limit on an empty road been classed as Murder ?
> 
> ...



Again, how do you account for shared use paths then - which the only special thing about them is a painted line (on segregated) or maybe a blue sign only (on non segregated) which is only there as an advisory sign - not a big glaring warning sign to ped's - they don't pay any attention to signage regardless IME. Yes there is a legality issue - but that is overcome with the path in question simply being designated as shared. The ped's will happily wander all over the markings, and a respectfull cyclist will take this into account, if your problem is just with the idiot cyclists then no one is going to stick up for them, they are a danger wherever they may be. Getting off and walking would only be required when the foot traffic is too heavy - quite clearly not all paths are that full.

I would see the meaning of sanctimonious as being holier than though - is that not what you are doing looking down on pavement cyclists?


----------



## very-near (26 Oct 2009)

> Don't worry rh, he's just having a go because it's me.



Don't flatter yourself. I am happy to slap down any dangerous and flagrant law breaker such as yourself. Smeggers is also testament to that.

The key is don't be a sanctimonious and hypocritical knob where law breaking is concerned and you won't leave yourself wide open for criticism in the way you just have.

Reap what you sow old chap


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> Again, how do you account for shared use paths then - which the only special thing about them is a painted line (on segregated) or maybe a blue sign only (on non segregated) which is only there as an advisory sign - not a big glaring warning sign to ped's - they don't pay any attention to signage regardless IME.



The desire to introduce "facilities" at minimal cost would be my bet. No need to re-route traffic while the line painting is done, or do much more than paint a line. They're pretty rubbish as "facilities" go, in general.

John Franklin;


> It is unfortunate, I believe, that so much cycle planning assumes that cyclists are some form of ‘rolling pedestrian’. This is not the case. Cyclists travel around 5 times faster than pedestrians, and in towns much closer to the speed of motor traffic. Cyclists cannot turn on the spot, move sideways or stop suddenly – 3 characteristics on which a lot of pedestrian safety depends. In fact, cyclists have very little in common with pedestrians and deserve not to be treated as such.


http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf



> The consequences of this approach [creating shared paths] are :
> * Facilities that are unsafe at normal cycling speeds yet usually slower and more tiring than roads;
> * Facilities which are dependent for their safety on pedestrian characteristics not shared by cyclists:
> e.g. being able to turn on the spot to see traffic and to move sideways to dodge conflict.
> ...


http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/glos_seminar.pdf


----------



## jimboalee (26 Oct 2009)

Update.

My son and I went on a 10 miler yesterday.

He wasn't feeling too well so we abandoned the 20 miler we had planned.

On the road, he was leading and he was riding at 7.5 - 8 mph.

I lost count of the toots and shouts we recieved off Truckers, WVM and 'Sunday motorists'.

The country lanes we were riding didn't have kerbs or pavements. We were stuck with irritable motorists who had to slow down to pass us. It didn't bother me but it un-nerved my son.

As soon as we could, we rode on the sidewalk.

Incidentally, the 'Pavement route' home passed right past Coleshill Police station. This didn't bother me either.


----------



## rh100 (26 Oct 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> The desire to introduce "facilities" at minimal cost would be my bet. No need to re-route traffic while the line painting is done, or do much more than paint a line. They're pretty rubbish as "facilities" go, in general.
> 
> John Franklin;
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/cfi_jaf.pdf
> ...



I agree, the pavement or shared path is not an ideal solution, but is the alternative to the road. A cyclist legally using a shared path does not suddenly turn into a marauding hooligan when the white lines and signs run out.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2009)

Want to see some IMO irresponsible pavement use?


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muwPfzabQgE


It's not cycling, and it's rather faster than any pavement cyclists I've seen.


----------



## brokenbetty (26 Oct 2009)

> No-one has answered yet. Linfy, you deferred to someone else saying that she had answered it. She didn't.



She did.

You didn't see the relevance. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant. You made some points I didn't respond to. That doesn't mean I had no response.

I won't continue this conversation. I trust you will not take my lack of a reply as in any way accepting or condoning your point of view.

Liz


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Want to see some IMO irresponsible pavement use?
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muwPfzabQgE
> ...




+ quiet upper body, in the circs
+ nice high-tempo skating
- armswing is all over the place
- push sideways not backwards
- needs to work on d-shaped recovery
- more kneebend needed

Oh ... wait ... wrong forum


----------



## Cab (26 Oct 2009)

Counted eleven pavement cyclists on the way home. None were causing any problems for pedestrians. Thats not including the many, many 'pavement' cyclists on shared use facilities (that didn't have white lines to divide traffic). 

I have no doubt that there are pavement cyclists who do cause problems. Just not many of them, in my experience.


----------



## very-near (26 Oct 2009)

> 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.
> 
> And that's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking about pavements and pedestrian areas where there are no separation lines but cyclists are invited to mix with pedestrians. Like New St, in the centre of Birmingham (Google Map it if you like).
> 
> ...



We have a cycle route running down the promenade past Cavendish House. There is a sign which says cyclists dismount. Hardly any do, and I've seen/had a few near misses over the years where they have just tanked on through. 

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.

I don't see the problem with complying with the law when you know there are pedestrians walking in the same space. You have no idea whether they have a visual or hearing impairment at the end of the day. Would you be able to forgive yourself if you knocked someone over because you felt that the laws of the land are not applicable to you ?


----------



## very-near (26 Oct 2009)

> We've discussed this before. The same route is marked on one of the town's cycling maps as a cycle route. Have you Cheltenham cyclists manage to sort it out yet?
> 
> *Yes we have clarification on it. The Cyclists Dismount sign has to be complied with as it is a pedestrian area. There are also signs stating the same thing outside M&S*
> 
> ...



See above, the sign says 'cyclists dismount'. That is enough for me


----------



## brokenbetty (26 Oct 2009)

> 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 (26 Oct 2009)

> 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 (27 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> 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)
> 
> ...



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 (27 Oct 2009)

rh100 said:


> 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 (27 Oct 2009)

marinyork said:


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



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


----------



## jimboalee (27 Oct 2009)

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 (27 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> 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 (27 Oct 2009)

jimboalee said:


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



No, it means blues fans permitted


----------



## Cab (27 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> 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)
> 
> ...



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 (27 Oct 2009)

> 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 (27 Oct 2009)

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 (27 Oct 2009)

+1. They both have verbal diarrhea.


----------



## Cab (27 Oct 2009)

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 (27 Oct 2009)

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 (28 Oct 2009)

That sounds a steep fine for back in 1842!


----------

