# Pavement cyclists.



## ManiaMuse (17 Jun 2010)

Was just walking down a narrow pavement on the LHS of the road and came across two adult cyclists cycling in the opposite direction towards me. The council has even been as nice to provide a cycle lane on the road (albeit in the opposite direction). I tell them 'get off the pavement' to which I get the response 'f**k off'.

Charming.


----------



## Mark_Robson (17 Jun 2010)

Are you a Policeman?
Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?


----------



## Trumpettom001 (17 Jun 2010)

I got told be someone walking along the pavement to "get off the F"£$%ING road"... we cyclists just can't win.


----------



## ManiaMuse (17 Jun 2010)

That's why I said it was a 'narrow pavement' and that there was a 'cycle lane'. They were cycling at a reasonable speed and were adults so you could expect they would be able to use the road.

Yes I know cyclists can't win but my point is that cycling on the pavement does no favours and their response just pissed me off for the way they didn't care.


----------



## Bromptonaut (17 Jun 2010)

It's the time of year. Waiting behind a bus this morning when no less than three in a row came past, hopped up the kerb onto the pavement and back off again in front of the bus.


----------



## martynjc1977 (17 Jun 2010)

I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.


----------



## Bromptonaut (17 Jun 2010)

martynjc1977 said:


> I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.



+1


----------



## dondare (17 Jun 2010)

"Big Society" Cameron wants us all to be little policemen.


----------



## ManiaMuse (17 Jun 2010)

Well I didn't vote for him...


----------



## Riding in Circles (17 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> "Big Society" Cameron wants us all to be little policemen.



There seem to be a lot of little Hitlers about already, should be an easy transition for them at least.


----------



## Tinuts (17 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?



Why should that matter, or do you think that no-one should ever express their dissatisfaction at another's antisocial behaviour...........unless, of course, they're a *policeman*? A strangely British malady, in my experience.



Mark_Robson said:


> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



Makes no difference. It is not legal to cycle on the pavement.

Personally, I'm all for having words/standing your ground or, preferably, both.


----------



## dondare (17 Jun 2010)

As a society perhaps we should involve ourselves more. Illegal behaviour is antisocial which does give us a right to condemn it.


----------



## Mark_Robson (17 Jun 2010)

Tinuts said:


> Why should that matter, or do you think that no-one should ever express their dissatisfaction at another's antisocial behaviour...........unless, of course, they're a *policeman*? A strangely British malady, in my experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally I'm all for judging each case on it's own merits. Most people I see cycling on the pavements do it because they aren't confident cycling in traffic or some people cycle with their kids on the pavement.
And some people cycle on the pavements in a totally irresponsible and potentially dangerous way but in my experience they are the exception.


----------



## downfader (17 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?
> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



Would it matter if they were a Policeman? The situation was at the very least bloody rude, and we all know pedallestrians are a big obstacle in our getting equality on the roads and in infrastructure. 

I have on occassion pretended to be drunk to make pedallestrians think twice about squeezing me off the pavement. Pedallestrians have no right to put pedestrians in the same position that drivers sometimes put us in, I would have done the same as Mania.


----------



## mangaman (17 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?
> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



This really irritates me. 

I walk to work generally and part is along a narrow/ winding footpath with clear no cycling signage. (Only a fewhundred yards, but cuts a lot off the walk)

I regularly see cyclists going down it. I enjoy my meander to work and walk the path assuming an idiot isn't about to approach me at 15 mph. Or worse still try to overtake me at that speed silently from behind.

My non-cycling friends can't understand why, when I do go in by bike, I use the road. They think I should cycle along the footpath and genuinely can't see a problem.

It's not rocket science.

I don't cycle on footpaths or motorways. Other routes I can pick and choose the best for me.

Anything else is just selfhishness I believe.

Why should you have the right to cycle somewhere illegal, just because you think you're being considarate?


----------



## downfader (17 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> Personally I'm all for judging each case on it's own merits. Most people I see cycling on the pavements do it because they aren't confident cycling in traffic or some people cycle with their kids on the pavement.
> And some people cycle on the pavements in a totally irresponsible and potentially dangerous way but in my experience they are the exception.



The problem is all pavement cycling is seen the same by the great British public. 

My Aunt isnt confident driving on motorways.She just avoids driving on them and takes other, more quieter roads. If a cyclist is unconfident they are letting themselves and others down if they resort to pavements.


----------



## Crankarm (17 Jun 2010)

A nicely furled umbrella becomes very handy in these instances .


----------



## mangaman (17 Jun 2010)

downfader said:


> The problem is all pavement cycling is seen the same by the great British public.
> 
> My Aunt isnt confident driving on motorways.She just avoids driving on them and takes other, more quieter roads. If a cyclist is unconfident they are letting themselves and others down if they resort to pavements.



It is dangerous as well downfader. Not in a statistically easily demonstible way - with KSI stats - but I have regular brushes with peanuts on bikes. I'm probably a bit more nimble than your Aunt  although I don't know her.

I have had to take some pretty nifty evasive action to avoid being crashed into by pavement cyclists. It happens I reckon twice a week at a conservative estimate on this particular footpath (it is a handy cut-through).


----------



## Parker-Knowall (17 Jun 2010)

It is always incorrect to cycle on the footpath. Certainly you should make offenders aware of your feelings concerning this. It's both your civil duty and your right.


----------



## Jugular (17 Jun 2010)

Bollocks.
The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.


----------



## Parker-Knowall (17 Jun 2010)

Jugular said:


> Bollocks.
> The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.



The majority of cyclists do ride on the road.


----------



## mangaman (17 Jun 2010)

Jugular said:


> Bollocks.
> The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.



Hello - nice post. 

I always think a post with Bollocks as the opening word is going to be a pleasure to read 

The majority of cyclists *are* confident enough to cycle on the road.

Leisure cycling can happen on shared-use paths/bridleways - otherwise cycle on the road. End of story.

If you aren't confident enough to cycle on the road, maybe you shouldn't be cycling?


----------



## Matthames (17 Jun 2010)

I reckon I could rack up quite a big tally with the number of pavement cyclists I have seen. Most of them have mostly been on the main road between Bexhill and Hastings, I think they do it more due to a lack of confidence and a perception that it is a really busy and dangerous road. If I am honest it is not really as busy as most people make it out to be as the traffic tends to move along at 20mph quite nicely at rush hour and the school run.


----------



## Parker-Knowall (17 Jun 2010)

If the pavements are so safe how do pedestrians get killed?


----------



## battered (17 Jun 2010)

Dead right. Most people think I should ride everywhere on the pavement until they see me bowling througfh town an 25 mph. "F* me, I'm not surprised you don't use the pavement at *that* speed, I wouldn't want to be coming out of a pub if you were going past like that". Exactly. Now cut me some slack, I could be doing anywhere between 10 and 30 mph, but when I have right of way I *will* be in the road.

The difference is that most cyclists don't feel quite as comfortable as I do when they are having to kick a white van to inform him of a violation of right of way.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (17 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> As a society perhaps we should involve ourselves more. Illegal behaviour is antisocial which does give us a right to condemn it.




Though I find a "come on now mate, don't take the piss eh?" approach is more effective than an "Oi! I say! Yes, you there! Stop your nefarious undertakings this instant!"


----------



## battered (17 Jun 2010)

mangaman said:


> If you aren't confident enough to cycle on the road, maybe you shouldn't be cycling?




Give me the keys to a white van and a cavalier disregard for other people's safety and I'll make your wish come true.

Within a year I guarantee 80% of Leeds cyclists will be off the road or dead. Simples.


----------



## Parker-Knowall (17 Jun 2010)

Universal public opprobrium is the best antidote to antisocial behaviour. Unilateral codemnation only engenders defiance among miscreants.


----------



## User10119 (18 Jun 2010)

I find a useful approach is to train a small child to very loudly say "Mum, look at that big boy riding on the pavement. Doesn't he know that pavements are for people? I ride on the road, and I'm only 8!"

Of course, this only works if you have a convenient, slightly cocky and relatively cute 8 year old... and will get him beaten up if he does it when he's much older. But that's OK, I have a spare 3 year old waiting to take the job on


----------



## mangaman (18 Jun 2010)

battered said:


> Give me the keys to a white van and a cavalier disregard for other people's safety and I'll make your wish come true.
> 
> Within a year I guarantee 80% of Leeds cyclists will be off the road or dead. Simples.



I disagree - and the figures bear it out.

Are you suggesting 80% of people who cycle in Leeds will be dead or off the road within 1 year?

I'm not sure quite how to respond to such a mad post 

Cycling has been shown to be very safe, and taking into account the health benefits, much better for you than not cycling.

I'll give you one link from the Government as one example

http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/health-fitness/


----------



## mangaman (18 Jun 2010)

battered said:


> Dead right. Most people think I should ride everywhere on the pavement until they see me bowling througfh town an 25 mph. "F* me, I'm not surprised you don't use the pavement at *that* speed, I wouldn't want to be coming out of a pub if you were going past like that". Exactly. Now cut me some slack, I could be doing anywhere between 10 and 30 mph, but when I have right of way I *will* be in the road.
> 
> The difference is that most cyclists don't feel quite as comfortable as I do when they are having to kick a white van to inform him of a violation of right of way.



Sorry - I don't understand a word you're saying.


----------



## raindog (18 Jun 2010)

There are some very strange posts in this thread.


----------



## Mark_Robson (18 Jun 2010)

mangaman said:


> Cycling has been shown to be very safe, and taking into account the health benefits, much better for you than not cycling.


I don't think that anyone would dispute that statement but we have to accept that cycling on the road is a nerve racking experience for the inexperienced cyclist. 

I consider myself to be an intermediate commuter, I'm confident and assertive, confident changing lanes, turning right and negotiating roundabouts. I'm as interested in improving my road skills as I am my stamina, that said I still have empathy with the people who don't subscribe to this forum or take cycling as seriously as I do. To them roads are something to be afraid of, turning right is terrifying and they dismount to avoid tackling roundabouts. 

Maybe an issue is that anyone can buy a bike and use it without any understanding of how to ride it safely, BTW I am not advocating mandatory cycle training here I am purely suggesting reasons why people cycle on pavements. 

There is also the question of confidence, roads are a daunting place for the inexperienced cyclist, cycle lanes are intermittent and full of debris, and there are a minority of motorists who have no respect for cyclists.

IMO, until cycling can be made less daunting for the inexperienced you are always going to have people riding on pavements. The only real solution is to improve the cycling infrastructure of this country to the point where people feel confident using it.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jun 2010)

Here in Lee on Solent there is a problem with people cycling on a particular stretch of footpath.







Problem is that it is the same colour that the local Council uses to identify cycle tracks.

Many of the perpetrators have assumed some consistency and genuinely think it is a cycle facility!


----------



## dondare (18 Jun 2010)

Bicycles are wheeled vehicles with dynamics similar to other wheeled vehicles and much different to those of pedestrians. The carriageway provides a suitable environment for vehicles and the footpath does not.


----------



## dondare (18 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> I don't think that anyone would dispute that statement but we have to accept that cycling on the road is a nerve racking experience for the inexperienced cyclist.
> 
> I consider myself to be an intermediate commuter, I'm confident and assertive, confident changing lanes, turning right and negotiating roundabouts. I'm as interested in improving my road skills as I am my stamina, that said I still have empathy with the people who don't subscribe to this forum or take cycling as seriously as I do. To them roads are something to be afraid of, turning right is terrifying and they dismount to avoid tackling roundabouts.
> 
> ...



These are not reasons for allowing cyclists to break the law and ride on the pavement. These are reasons for not allowing motorists to break the law so that the roads are safer. Any campaigning for bikes on pavements is misdirected and misguided.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jun 2010)

I think a lot of people in this thread seem to have completelly missed one important point in the OP's post in their haste to debate pavement surfing.

If you shout at people or address them rudely i.e. "get of the pavement" then you just invite people to tell you to f*ck off, I'd have probly told you (the OP) to f*ck off if he/she(you) had addressed me with an authorative/aggresive tone tbh, if you had maybe started with something more social ("morning, do you know that you are not supposed to cycle on the pavements? This pavement in particular is very narrow and it is quite an obstruction") you may or may not (probly not - but you would at least have had a better moral standpoint to moan about their response, since your issue seems to be more focused on being told to f*ck off rather than them pavement surfing) have got a better response.

Believe it or not, people often respond to rudeness and aggression with rudeness and aggression.


I dont condone pavement surfing unless it is required to access cyclepaths or other access point, which on my commute, it is at 2 points, you have no choice but to use a pavement and ped crossing to get onto the cycle path approaching my work place, and then must surf another pavement for about 3 metres to get around a security barrier, wrong as it may be im not dismounting for 3 metres.


----------



## Armegatron (18 Jun 2010)

I was riding along a segregated cycle / ped path before, and had a family of joggers approach me. I was on my half and they were bunched up and not moving to their half. I got closer and politely said excuse me, and after I had slowed to a crawl the father last minute moved over saying, "you belong on the road". Sometimes we just cant win


----------



## dondare (18 Jun 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> I think a lot of people in this thread seem to have completelly missed one important point in the OP's post in their haste to debate pavement surfing.
> 
> If you shout at people or address them rudely i.e. "get of the pavement" then you just invite people to tell you to f*ck off, I'd have probly told you (the OP) to f*ck off if he/she(you) had addressed me with an authorative/aggresive tone tbh, if you had maybe started with something more social ("morning, do you know that you are not supposed to cycle on the pavements? This pavement in particular is very narrow and it is quite an obstruction") you may or may not (probly not - but you would at least have had a better moral standpoint to moan about their response, since your issue seems to be more focused on being told to f*ck off rather than them pavement surfing) have got a better response.
> 
> ...



Would you dismount if you were asked politely?


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Would you dismount if you were asked politely?



Yes. I would dismount without being prompted if I was an inconvenience to pedestrians also. If I was no inconvenience to them and they asked me to dismount, I may offer them an explination as to why for this very small section I am on the pavement (probly about 10 metres total) if they tried to inform me im not meant to be on the pavement, depending on the situation I would probly dismount to humour them, walk 3 metres and mount up again, which would simply make them realise how pointless a request it was.

The 3 metre section to pass a security gate is a quiet pavement. The pedestrian crossing, I simply cross according to the lights taking care not to be an inconvenience to the pedestrians. If its busy I'll dismount.


----------



## Ste T. (18 Jun 2010)

I really enjoy reading commuting posts and videos about how all these drivers are peanuts and can't follow the rules of the road... and the rants about them not understanding the door zone or primary riding position.. and the way they often cut us up for no real advantage. This is all because they don't follow the rules.
And there's the rub.
Once we don't follow the rules ourselves, or read them the way we want to, we lose the right to be indignent about our lives being put at risk by others. In anticipation of you saying you do it carefully and don't speed, you may not, but many do. Theyr'e in 1 ton steel boxes and can do far more harm? Last year,near where I live, an old lady was knocked down by a cyclist riding on the pavement and broke her hip and a few years before that a middle aged bloke ,waiting to cross on a pelican was knocked down on the pavement, the cyclist got back on and shot off. The bloke banged his head but didn't go to hospital. The next day he was rushed to hospital where he died of a brain heamorrage. The cyclist was never traced. It doesn't happen often,and for the most part we may not do as much damage as cars, but it does happen. The driving community don't have a monopoly on peanuts.
I'm off for a 30 miler now, to do some shouting at the peanuts in the cars, so I can't respond sorry,
Take care out there everyone


----------



## Norm (18 Jun 2010)

battered said:


> Dead right. Most people think I should ride everywhere on the pavement until they see me bowling througfh town an 25 mph. "F* me, I'm not surprised you don't use the pavement at *that* speed, I wouldn't want to be coming out of a pub if you were going past like that". Exactly. Now cut me some slack, I could be doing anywhere between 10 and 30 mph, but when I have right of way I *will* be in the road.


Kind of +1 to that, with reservations because I think much of the danger isn't about speed but about speed differentials. 

When I ride on the road, I generally do between 15-20mph. For the majority of the roads that I use, that puts me at a speed around 35% of the speed limit, and around 50% of the speed that most cars travel at.

Doing that speed on the pavement, though, would mean that I'm doing at least 5 times the speed of pedestrians.

Taking into account that I ride in the left hand carriageway, in the same direction as the cars on that carriageway, and the speed differential is not that great, in percentage terms and drivers have a good chance to see me and avoid me. 

On pavements or shared use facilities, where there is no control over the direction of flow, with entry and exit points like pubs, driveways etc you'd need to ride at 6-8mph to have a similar differential. That's a bit slow, even for me.



battered said:


> Give me the keys to a white van and a cavalier disregard for other people's safety and I'll make your wish come true.
> 
> Within a year I guarantee 80% of Leeds cyclists will be off the road or dead. Simples.






mangaman said:


> Are you suggesting 80% of people who cycle in Leeds will be dead or off the road within 1 year?


No, he's saying, pretty explicitly IMO, that if you gave him a white van and a cavalier disregard for other people's safety, then he'd take out 80% of the cyclists in Leeds.


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jun 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> Believe it or not, people often respond to rudeness and aggression with rudeness and aggression.



True. Pavement cycling is rude and aggressive, that's why pedestrians often react aggressively.

In other words, the cyclist started it.

Round here, the pavement cyclists are late teenagers and grown men. Yes, they ride on the pavement because they are scared of the road, but that's not how they see it. They just prefer to be top dog on the pavement.


----------



## Rob3rt (18 Jun 2010)

brokenbetty said:


> True. *Pavement cycling is rude and aggressive, that's why pedestrians often react aggressively.*
> 
> In other words, the cyclist started it.
> 
> Round here, the pavement cyclists are late teenagers and grown men. Yes, they ride on the pavement because they are scared of the road, but that's not how they see it. They just prefer to be top dog on the pavement.



IMO this is not accurate, it is possible to navigate a pavement when neccessary, doing so carefully, taking care not to endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

Some people may swerve about and ride stupidly on the pavement, others simply are trying to access places with no alternative route and dont dismount for a short distance or are building confidence. Then some high and mighty ped starts wailing at them, they are bound to reply in an 'un-sanitary' way when if simply approached they may offer a simple explination or even dismount. 

Its just the equivalent of a ped in the cycle lane, if you yell f*cking move they will give you abuse back and possibly obstruct you further, if you just say, excuse me, do you realise this is a cycle lane, you might find they often just move to one side or aknowledge you.

Pavement cycling may not be acceptable but no need to treat people like scum for doing so. Especially when you have no idea why they are there. Let them know they arent meant to be there and then let them decide how to procede, judge their following actions, if they continue, judge them all you want, how about if they just didnt realise they are doing wrong then someone starts shouting and commanding them around and they dont understand why they are being yelled at, dont just yell at people.


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jun 2010)

> I'll line the drinks up for later Betty.


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jun 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> IMO this is not accurate, it is possible to navigate a pavement when neccessary, doing so carefully, taking care not to endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.



It doesn't matter what the cyclist does. It's a territorial thing. Just being in the pedestrians' space is an act of aggression which the brain responds to in defence mode.

You know all those videos of close overtakes that get posted? Why do cyclists get so annoyed even though 99% of them pass without incident? Because the driver is in their space, taking a risk with the cyclist that the cyclist has no say in.

It's the same for pavement cyclists.


----------



## Debian (18 Jun 2010)

It's both a grey and a non-grey area.

It's illegal to cycle on the footway, that's on the statute books. But the rule of law can only be upheld if the majority of the population so governed agree to abide by said law, i.e. it's rule by consensus.

It can be argued that banning pavement cycling under some circumstances is ridiculous and therefore the rule of law cannot and would not be upheld by the majority.

I sometimes ride on the pavement; there are stretches of narrow rural A road in my location that carries fast traffic, they also have long stretches of footpath most of which probably hasn't seen a pedestrian in months if not years, and I often cycle along it if the road is busy or if I feel fragile. This harms or inconveniences no-one and a ban on doing this simply cannot be defensible.

I rarely cycle on urban footpaths but have been guilty of it (and feel guilty about doing it) from time to time - perhaps if it's pelting with rain, the traffic's backed up and I just want to get home. But here I am much more circumspect; I ride slowly along such pavements and I always stop if I encounter pedestrians. Again this inconveniences no-one and improves my quality of life on that occasion.

I don't think it's defensible to hold a position of simply disagreeing with pavement cycling under any and all circumstances.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jun 2010)

Pavement cyclist covers such a broad range of behaviour and attitudes that it is pretty much meaningless.

Even the law recognises that in while making it technically illegal the advice on giving PCNs is that it should be reserved for anti-social cycling.

Does that include some of mine last year when roadworks led to a lengthy, hilly and dangerous diversion or quick ride along 50 yards of pavement? Of course I would dismount if it interfered with anyone but what is the point if it does not. Or indeed many other reasons that seem reasonable to me and would, I hope, be equally reasonable to a passing plod.

Oh and I got told off the other week for being dismounted on the pavement. Some pedestrians one can never satisfy!


----------



## Ticktockmy (18 Jun 2010)

martynjc1977 said:


> I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.



Same here, no need to say anything, as most know that they should not be riding on the pavement.


----------



## BSRU (18 Jun 2010)

I far as I know, in Swindon, all the designated cycle paths are actually pedestrian pavements opened up for use by bicycles. Most just have a small blue sign somewhere and a small few have white dividing lines. This is obviously the cheapest way to meet government targets. This not only creates a problem with interactions between different types of users, most pedestrians seem unaware it is shared, it also seems to encourage general pavement cycling everywhere.
Almost 100% of my journey is on the road, I rarely see other cyclists on the road, not great if I want to scalp but good at preventing me being scalped.


----------



## jonny jeez (18 Jun 2010)

Jugular said:


> Bollocks.
> The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.




Thank you, I assume the paragraph above is an extract from the Oxford English dictionary and is transcribed on our behalf as the definition of the word Bollocks.

ie.
*Bollocks **(bŏl'əks)*

*Middle english slang, The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road, etc...*

In which case, I wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you for defining utter-bollocks for me.


----------



## Mark_Robson (18 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> Thank you, I assume the paragraph above is an extract from the Oxford English dictionary and is transcribed on our behalf as the definition of the word Bollocks.
> 
> ie.
> *Bollocks **(bŏl'əks)*
> ...


So what would be your solution to the problem of pavement cyclists?


----------



## dondare (18 Jun 2010)

Debian said:


> It's both a grey and a non-grey area.
> 
> It's illegal to cycle on the footway, that's on the statute books. But the rule of law can only be upheld if the majority of the population so governed agree to abide by said law, i.e. it's rule by consensus.
> 
> It can be argued that banning pavement cycling under some circumstances is ridiculous and therefore the rule of law cannot and would not be upheld by the majority.



The majority of motorists exceed the speed limit and a substantial minority use a phone whilst driving. These practices are dangerous and illegal and motorists can be prosecuted for them. 
No rule by consensus there, then.

Even if the majority of cyclists wanted pavement cycling, which in any case I doubt is the case, the majority of pedestrians do not. So no consensus there, either.


----------



## dondare (18 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> So what would be your solution to the problem of pavement cyclists?


Rigorous enforcement of _all_ traffic laws. Then cycling on the carriageway would be safer.
So would driving on the carriageway and crossing it on foot.


----------



## taxing (18 Jun 2010)

Strangely enough when I walked everywhere considerate cyclists on the pavement didn't bother me. But since I started cycling to work two weeks ago I've become a pavement cyclist hater. I haven't ridden a bike in ten years but I soon got the hang of it again and built up the confidence necessary to ride on big roads pretty quickly, so why haven't they done the same? I wouldn't mind if I saw an old dear riding on the pavement, but the majority are middle aged men wearing those thick hi-vis jackets that builders and people who work with machinery wear, and they're always dirty (as though they've been worked in). That leads me to assume that they're healthy. So why am I riding on the road, and they're not?


----------



## Mark_Robson (18 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> Rigorous enforcement of _all_ traffic laws. Then cycling on the carriageway would be safer.
> So would driving on the carriageway and crossing it on foot.


It's cyclists perception of safety that you need to change. If people are frightened of traffic then they will avoid riding on the roads, regardless of how well people are driving.


----------



## StuartG (18 Jun 2010)

That's the problem Mr Taxing. It takes a very hard man to be annoyed by a little kid learning to ride (on the pavement) or gorgeous blonde on a pink Pashley scooting up to the butchers. But a couple of hoodies ... well is it about cycling or our attitudes to other people?

The base problem is that very occasionally ~once a year I get buzzed by a bike on the pavement. Many times a week I get obstructed by a motor car. That's how it is round here. But people here moan about the cyclists. Much more rarely the motorist.


----------



## martynjc1977 (18 Jun 2010)

taxing said:


> Strangely enough when I walked everywhere considerate cyclists on the pavement didn't bother me. But since I started cycling to work two weeks ago I've become a pavement cyclist hater. I haven't ridden a bike in ten years but I soon got the hang of it again and built up the confidence necessary to ride on big roads pretty quickly, so why haven't they done the same? I wouldn't mind if I saw an old dear riding on the pavement, but the majority are middle aged men wearing those thick hi-vis jackets that builders and people who work with machinery wear, and they're always dirty (as though they've been worked in). That leads me to assume that they're healthy. So why am I riding on the road, and they're not?



Because apparently you have a death wish, lmfao,


----------



## Domeo (18 Jun 2010)

The more times drivers see pavement cycling the more it reinforces their perception that that is where cyclists should be and will continue eroding our rights to be on the road. This also applies to all the segregation schemes 'advocates' bang on about.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (18 Jun 2010)

Debian said:


> I sometimes ride on the pavement; there are stretches of narrow rural A road in my location that carries fast traffic, they also have long stretches of footpath most of which probably hasn't seen a pedestrian in months if not years, and I often cycle along it if the road is busy or if I feel fragile. This harms or inconveniences no-one and a ban on doing this simply cannot be defensible.
> ...
> I don't think it's defensible to hold a position of simply disagreeing with pavement cycling under any and all circumstances.



I agree with both of these sentiments. For instance, I know I'm not a fast cyclist, and on an A road there is no way I can make any pretense of not holding traffic up in the road. Recently I rode from Cheltenham to Tewkesbury; and there's a bit of a hill coming out of Cheltenham. As my uphill speed is stupidly low; and traffic wants to be doing the national speed limit; it's stupid for me to be in the road if there is an alternative. It's also stupid for me to hug the side of the road knowing what crud usually lurks there (especially on a road you don't know well).

Now, in those situations, if there were to be a pedestrian anywhere near me, I slow to practically walking speed (as I do when legitimately on a shared use pavement). 

Speeding and/or inconsiderate pavement cyclists - especially when there is no reason for it - do annoy me no end. Mr SHK & I were recently overtaken very closely and with no warning on the pavement (as pedestrians!) by a fixie who was racing along at a good speed - this on a road where there was a good cycle lane (and one in his direction as well) - and the speed he was going he would have been keeping up with traffic just fine. He didn't slow down at all to come past us, and I can see if there had been an elderly or disabled person about bad things could have happened.

I also sometimes cycle in to work using an alternate route. Here I'm stuck - if I get on the road I need to either negotiate a large two lane roundabout (which I am not confident doing) or I need to use a subway (which I'm not actually sure is a cycle path as well; there is a suspicious looking faded sign which I think was once a no-cycling sign) and then somehow get from the pavement onto the road; then pedal a short stretch before negotiating a horrid junction currently undergoing roadworks* and then trying to turn right across traffic (not at a set of lights) immediately afterward.
What I do instead is cycle along the shared use path until it stops being shared use (with no alternate route for cyclists travelling in my direction!) and then coast along very slowly for the remaining bit, at roughly walking speed. 

*a different set from the one mentioned in my previous post on the 'close overtakes' thread


----------



## taxing (18 Jun 2010)

StuartG said:


> That's the problem Mr Taxing. It takes a very hard man to be annoyed by a little kid learning to ride (on the pavement) or gorgeous blonde on a pink Pashley scooting up to the butchers. But a couple of hoodies ... well is it about cycling or our attitudes to other people?



I would be very annoyed by a gorgeous blonde on a pink Pashley, I'm a girl. I'd be jealous.  

Seriously though, yes, I would also be annoyed by a woman pavement cycling too, I just don't really see it. The only exceptions I make are for children and the elderly. If I can do it, so can other people who aren't particularly vulnerable.


----------



## Mark_Robson (18 Jun 2010)

taxing said:


> If I can do it, so can other people who aren't particularly vulnerable.


What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?
This debate isn't as black and white as you may think and the "I do it so everyone else should do it as well" attitude won't solve the problem.


----------



## Tinuts (18 Jun 2010)

dondare said:


> The majority of motorists exceed the speed limit and a substantial minority use a phone whilst driving. These practices are dangerous and illegal and motorists can be prosecuted for them.
> No rule by consensus there, then.
> 
> Even if the majority of cyclists wanted pavement cycling, which in any case I doubt is the case, the majority of pedestrians do not. So no consensus there, either.



Abso-friggin'-lutely


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jun 2010)

I can completely understand that not all cyclists are prepared to cycle on all roads at all times, whether the reason is safety, holding up drivers unreasonably or just that the road doesn't go where they need to be.

However I don't see why needing to use the pavement means we have to RIDE on the pavement.

Ride it on the road, wheel it on the pavement. Simples.


----------



## brokenbetty (18 Jun 2010)

> That can mean though that those pavement riders who you understand would have to walk for a fair proportion of their journey in some places, minimising the benefit of them cycling in the first place. We can't really expect them to wait around for our society to never improve routes for cyclists can we?



Very few would have to walk more than a minute or two. Those that do could use the time composing a letter to the council making the case to make that piece of pavement dual use 

I don't have a problem with peds and bikes in the same place, just with bikes turning up where peds have good reason not to expect them. A shared path doesn't fit that description, a normal pavement does.


----------



## JamesAC (18 Jun 2010)

martynjc1977 said:


> I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.


+1

I find that an umbrella through the front wheel spokes emphasizes the point.


----------



## taxing (18 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?
> This debate isn't as black and white as you may think and the "I do it so everyone else should do it as well" attitude won't solve the problem.



Parents should dismount. My definition of vulnerable is children (under 14), the elderly, and anyone with a disability that allows them to ride a bike, but would prevent them from managing a road safely. It has to be made black and white because we're talking about something that is a law, and the law has to be black and white to avoid confusion.


----------



## Norm (18 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> What's your definition of vulnerable? and are parents allowed to accompany their children on the pavement or should they be dismounted?


That's my main problem. I don't ride on pavements but, when I'm out with the kids (both pre-teen) and cycling along a main road, I encourage them both to do so. On quieter or wider roads, I'm happy enough for them to be on the main carriageway but the rat-run outside my house is a bit of a nightmare. Anyway, I always feel guilty riding in the road at 8-10mph when I'm out with the kids but I still won't cycle on the pavement.



JamesAC said:


> I find that an umbrella through the front wheel spokes emphasizes the point.


No, you are right, you should be judge and jury and impose a potential death penalty on someone for riding on the pavement.


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> So what would be your solution to the problem of pavement cyclists?



I've never proclaimed to hold the "answer"

But I wouldn 't start from a position of assuming that the "majority" of cyclists are too scared to ride on the road (they are not, in my experience) or that they will be aware of pedestirans when on the pavement (they mostly dont care, in my experience) or will get off when asked (they never do...in my experience).

Cylists who ride the pavement often do so at the same speed as the road and seem oblivious to pedestrians who will not expect them to be there. 

Common sense is not a reliable defence as most pavement cyclist do not seem to posses this quality.


----------



## Mark_Robson (19 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> I've never proclaimed to hold the "answer"
> 
> But I wouldn 't start from a position of assuming that the "majority" of cyclists are too scared to ride on the road (they are not, in my experience) or that they will be aware of pedestirans when on the pavement (they mostly dont care, in my experience) or will get off when asked (they never do...in my experience).
> 
> ...


I don't recall saying that the majority of cyclists are too afraid to use the roads? but never mind. 

Obviously your experience of pavement cyclists is totally different to mine, in fact I'm bewildered by your experience of pavement cyclists. 

Just to recap, the majority of pavement cyclists aren't aware of pedestrians, and even if they are aware of them, they don't care anyway, they ride at the same speed that they would on the road and they are totally oblivious of any pedestrians around them?

Wow that's shocking, now I understand why you feel as strongly as you do. 

Or maybe we have a found a new definition for the word bollocks. 

Seriously though, I don't dispute that some pavement cyclists are irresponsible fools but I would dispute that they are in the majority.

No one has asked the obvious question yet, If pavement cyclists are such a problem then why aren't the Police tackling the issue? I remember a traffic cop in an earlier thread state that he would never stop anyone for riding on the pavement, unless they were cycling in a dangerous way and the Policemen that I have spoken to have the same opinion. 

For the record I would like to see all cyclists either using the road or using designated cycle paths but you have to be pragmatic and accept that is isn't going to happen any time soon.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (19 Jun 2010)

Debian said:


> It's both a grey and a non-grey area.
> 
> It's illegal to cycle on the footway, that's on the statute books. But the rule of law can only be upheld if the majority of the population so governed agree to abide by said law, i.e. it's rule by consensus.
> 
> It can be argued that banning pavement cycling under some circumstances is ridiculous and therefore the rule of law cannot and would not be upheld by the majority.




In fact it seems to be EXPECTED by planners....

One example

http://bit.ly/9WSWNK

Now, the cycle lane itself is fine. It saves a pointless detour down and around a roundabout for the sake of it. However there is nowhere to go at the dashed give way line...

_That's of course assuming that one can get to the cycle island, often difficult since cars coming from the right don't like the "left turn only" sign and try to cut across the island and the hatched prohibitive markings to go ahead illegally_

The traffic light is an irrelevance since it indicates for a left turn BUT most of the time one cannot proceed until that left turn signal is lit (i.e. the light is at red for traffic going across left to right - eg the red and silver cars)

Problem being, when that light is at red, the pedestrian crossing light is at green.

The options are therefore

1) ride through the pedestrian crossing carefully giving way to anyone crossing (though not an RLJ since no red lights or stop lines have been passed)

2) cycle down the pedestrianised street.

Neither are perfect, though I choose 1 option 1 and when I pass the other end of the pedestrian zone, I am invariably passing it ahead of those who go straight on.

Either way, the facility whilst actualy quite useful, does end in ambiguity


----------



## g0kmt (19 Jun 2010)

And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)? Do you run them over for being out of their supposed territory?

The promonade in Fleetwood has signs with a cycle on a blue background and arrows pointing to the foot path (Nowhere near junctions) This indicates to me that the footpath is to be used for cyclists as well. There are no shared use signs on the path however. Does this mean that its a cycle path only? I don't think so.

My point is that there is sufficient confusion in everyday life that implies the use of footpaths for cycling on is OK.

The generalisms that all motorists speed, all cyclists who ride on the path are unsure of the road, are a bit useless as arguments in this case guys. 

Riding on the footpath may in certain circumstances be illegal but like the more serious offences of speeding, drink driving, using mobile phones whilst driving, violence and murder that are illegal also, it will never be stamped out!!

Yer average jo public (me included) does not know every rule in the book. Most just apply common sense, unlike some.

Just my two penneth worth


----------



## jonny jeez (19 Jun 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> I don't recall saying that the majority of cyclists are too afraid to use the roads? but never mind.
> 
> .




err...no, you're right you didnt.

I was replying to Jugulars mail headed "bollocks" ...which is never a great way to start an open debate imo

but you responded to that? did you think my reply was a responce to something you had posted?


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jun 2010)

> We've been here before, and that claim was also incorrect then.



Really? I don't remember you showing that it was incorrect, just that it wasn't your personal experience.



> And again I've asked this before, what about shared use areas that are unmarked? A significant part of Birmingham city centre for example is shared use, but there are no road signs or markings anywhere.



*Marked shared use:*
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "It's shared use mate"
Ped: _grumble grumble grumble_

*Unmarked shared use:*
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "It's shared use mate"
Ped: _grumble grumble grumble_

*Not shared use:*
Ped: "Oi, get off the pavement"
Cyclist: "I'll ride here if I want to"
Ped: _typical bloody selfish cyclist_

Now the ped is always going to react badly because they've been taken by surprise, but which ped is going to think worst of cyclists in future?


----------



## brokenbetty (19 Jun 2010)

g0kmt said:


> And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)? Do you run them over for being out of their supposed territory?



I ring my bell and if they don't hear that I yell "oi!". And because they are on the road, they almost always say "oh! sorry" and move out of the way.


----------



## Mark_Robson (19 Jun 2010)

jonny jeez said:


> err...no, you're right you didnt.
> 
> I was replying to Jugulars mail headed "bollocks" ...which is never a great way to start an open debate imo
> 
> but you responded to that? did you think my reply was a responce to something you had posted?


I'm afraid that I did.


----------



## GFamily (19 Jun 2010)

Rob3rt said:


> Yes. I would dismount without being prompted if I was an inconvenience to pedestrians also. If I was no inconvenience to them and they asked me to dismount, I may offer them an explination as to why for this very small section I am on the pavement (probly about 10 metres total)



If it's only 10 metres, why not just obey the law and walk it? Surely it saves the moral peril of having to justify to others your illegal actions. 

I wonder how often you find yourself in the wrong?


----------



## GFamily (20 Jun 2010)

> And again I've asked this before, what about shared use areas that are unmarked? A significant part of Birmingham city centre for example is shared use, but there are no road signs or markings anywhere.



What about it? Does the existence of such _areas _in some areas of central Birmingham or anywhere have any relevance to non shared use _pavements _elsewhere? 

Most pavements are not 'unsigned shared use', so cyclists' use of them would be illegal.

And if some cyclists do find themselves cycling around a 'shared use area' rather than cycling through it, their health benefits will probably be increased; cycling is so efficient I'd expect 1 minute cycling to be a lot less beneficial than 3 minutes walking the same distance.


----------



## GFamily (20 Jun 2010)

g0kmt said:


> And what about pedestrians walking down the middle of the road (side street)?


Just out of interest, what do you do? What is your opinion of them?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (20 Jun 2010)

Parker-Knowall said:


> If the pavements are so safe how do pedestrians get killed?



on the roads or cars and bikes mounting the pavement illegally 

for those claiming lack of confidence being the reason why cyclists ride on the pavement - how do you build up your confidence on the roads by avoiding them? 

I've taught my kids to ride and have sen them on the pavement whilst they've been to all intents and purposes functionally incompetent as cyclists - wobbly and focussing too much on themselves, I rode on the road beside them - the world didn't end. By the sound of the OP the two cyclists didn't fit the criteria of being functionally imcompetent and maybe shouldn't have been on the pavement.


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jun 2010)

> And if anyone with any experience of city living claims that you can get anywhere on a bike using quiet routes plus a minute or two of walking, then I really don't see the point in addressing such a strange and clearly questionable claim.



Not _anywhere_, but getting to the majority of destinations using quiet routes plus a minute or two of walking at a time to get between busy parts without resorting to the pavement? Yes, I'm sure I could. Easier in a city than the country really, given that we have more roads to chose from. The main problem would be destinations on the other side of the river.


----------



## iAmiAdam (20 Jun 2010)

Well, this has put me off my ride tomorrow, knowing that so many people will be willing to endanger people who cycle on pavements as they are not confident enough on the roads. Irony anyone?


----------



## brokenbetty (20 Jun 2010)

> Nope, still doesn't wash. Unless London is different to when I lived there, and different to any other city in the country.



What parts of London are only accessible by main roads then?


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (26 Mar 2011)

MisterPaul: "For the record I think that we should have extensive facilities so that cyclists can ride at their own pace, comfortably and safely and with children when necessary. Until we do cyclists will compromise."

But you're not compromising. You're taking. Don't you speak English?

There is no point in being polite to people who cycle on the pavement. Whenever I have said anything polite to them, they have either ignored me or responded with abuse. It's illegal and dangerous, they know it's illegal and dangerous, and they don't care. A cyclist doesn't have to be going at twenty miles per hour to cause serious injury. All you have to do is knock someone over, which is easy to do if you are coming up from behind them and they have no idea that you are there. Plenty of times I have been about to go into a shop and some idiot has come past me at ten miles an hour and nearly flattened me.

Some cyclists cycle as I used to do. On the road, stopping at traffic lights, behaving like adults. And don't pretend that the roads were safer then. Try Elephant and Castle or Marble Arch roundabouts without traffic lights. Get your speed up and get in there - or walk. As for cycling along the pavement in the high street, that would have been unthinkable - just childish and selfish. But these days most cyclists are self-obsessed, whiney infants. The many spoling it for the few.

If cyclists continue to think only about themelves (which they will), the Government will end up licensing cyclists as they do car drivers, banning the idiots, etc. That would have seemed ridiculous years ago, but not any more.


----------



## mickle (26 Mar 2011)

"But these days most cyclists are self-obsessed, whiney infants".

I think you might have taken a wrong turn back there. This, in case you haven't noticed, is a cycling forum. Populated mostly by cyclists. The hint was in the title.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (26 Mar 2011)

dondare said:


> As a society perhaps we should involve ourselves more. Illegal behaviour is antisocial which does give us a right to condemn it.



Or perhaps we should not be a society of self-important laymen who think we know everything and try to impose our will on others. Report what concerns us, yes. Take further action, perhaps not (on things less obvious than say chasing someone woo you have ust witnessed snatching a bag or suchlike)

Consider the "punishment pass" because "the peanut on a bike should be in the gutter" by someone who actualy believes wholeheartedly that cars have supreme rights and other road users are guests who must yield. That's an example of people enforcing their own erroneous interpretations onto others

Similarly the know-it-all woman who deliberately stepped in front of me on a shared-use path when i was just 3 feet away and not "speeding" causing me to choose to clip a lamp-post rather than knock her over as I struggled to stop, just so that she could begin a rant about how I should be cycling on the road whilst I rued my bruised shoulder and half-wished I'd not reacted as quick and mowed her down instead

_Normally I use the road there, but the shared use is useful on my way to the train station as it directly accesses the toucan crossing as there is no facility otherwise to turn off the road to the station_

We can't simply have all and sundry enforcing laws - the police struggle to comprehend the law much of the time (not unexpected,_ the law is a ass_ after all sometimes, and after all, solicitors, barristers etc specialise in different areas)


----------



## sabian92 (26 Mar 2011)

Jugular said:


> Bollocks.
> The majority of cyclists are not confident enough to cycle on the road. I for one would not deny them the safety of the pavement given that they are aware of pedestrians and when space gets tight they should dismount. Common sense is all that is needed, not swearing or fannying about. You put yourself, other pedestrians and the cyclist in danger that way. It's irrelevant whether you're a pedestrian, driver or cyclist common sense trumps safety first every time. Otherwise, we'll all be ferried from door to door in armored vehicles before long.



Actually, the only cyclists I see on the pavements are people who are not even old enough to wipe their own backside (kids, or old people) and they're riding so slowly they're SLOWER than a ped. I ride on the road - I've only just picked cycling up as a hobby and 99% of the time I'm on the road. I'll use the pavement if it's a bit of road with a massive line of parked cars and an empty pavement, just so I don't get in the way of cars who can't pass, which is illegal but definitely not inconsiderate.

Most cyclists DO ride on the road - the ones who don't will know it's illegal to use the pavement unless they're little kids (and I wouldn't want them on the road anyway!)

If you're under 16 you're basically immune from the "no cycling on the pavement law" anyway. The penalty is a £30 fixed penalty notice and you can't get one of those unless you're 16 or older.(At least, so I've read, don't quote me on that.)


----------



## DrSquirrel (26 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> *Are you a Policeman?*
> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



Don't use that stupid phrase here.

Its a phrase you will often here from motorists too towards cyclists trying to enact their rights.

If you want people to judge each situation on its merits, surely you are asking them TO BE policemen? And wouldn't your initial question be the second one asked?


----------



## Mark_Robson (27 Mar 2011)

DrSquirrel said:


> Don't use that stupid phrase here.
> 
> Its a phrase you will often here from motorists too towards cyclists trying to enact their rights.
> 
> If you want people to judge each situation on its merits, surely you are asking them TO BE policemen? And wouldn't your initial question be the second one asked?


I'll use that phrase wherever and whenever I like, thank you.  
I have a friend who is a policeman and his attitude to pavement cyclists, and apparently Northumbria Polices attitude as well is exactly the same as mine. If cyclists are using pavements in preference to busy roads and they aren't endangering people in the process then leave them be. There's a massive difference between a considerate pavement cyclist and a moron tearing along with no respect or consideration for peds.

If people want to play at policing the pavements and ridding them of all cyclists then good luck to them but they might want to consider where to draw the line between "educating" cyclists and intimidating them, because the last video of such an occurrence that I saw posted on this forum looked like borderline intimidation to me. And will people be educating the police and PCSO's who cycle on the pavement as well?


----------



## Vikeonabike (27 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Or perhaps we should not be a society of self-important laymen who think we know everything and try to impose our will on others. Report what concerns us, yes. Take further action, perhaps not (on things less obvious than say chasing someone woo you have ust witnessed snatching a bag or suchlike)



I can't think of anything worse than a society in which the only people allowed to stand up and tell someone they are out of order are the ones with badges. If that makes me self-important then so be it. I'd rather that than passively stand by while the selfish and the thoughtless degrade everyone's day to day environment.

We get the society we deserve.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101426"]
I agree. I tend to leave the non-degrading pavement cyclists be though. To be honest most people don't even notice them. I wonder whether you do?
[/quote]

The under 12s? They make me smile 

The adults? As you know, your ideas about what pedestrians care about and mine are very different. I see 10 or so adults on the pavement a day and I've only seen one in the last month that I thought was riding with consideration. And she would have been just as fast getting off the bike and walking.

One thing to consider - all the arguments for pavement cycling assume low numbers of cyclists. How does it work when the number of cyclists increases?


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101429"]
If pedestrians have a problem with cyclists on the pavement who are troubling no-one, then they need to get a life and stop choosing to be offended.
[/quote]

That's a contradiction in terms: if _*pedestrians have a problem*_ then by definition the cyclists are not_* t**roubling no-one*_. 

I think what you actually mean is that the pedestrians who complain are over sensitive to feel intimidated and invaded because the cyclists they complain about are skilled and considerate and therefore pose no danger.

Funnily enough, that's what lots of drivers say when cyclists complain about close passes, left hooks etc.

I think making peds feel unsafe in areas where they don't expect to be sharing the pavement is a good enough reason not to cycle around them no matter what I personally think about my own ability to avoid accidents.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101431"]
No I don't. I mean that people get riled about things that don't affect them or anyone else in the slightest, only 'because they shouldnt!' It's in all of us, that little urge, and it's a choice whether one gets a life or writes to the local newspaper.

It has nothing to do with intimidation or making people feel unsafe, but everything to do with misplaced ownership attitude. in the same way that we experience it with some drivers on the road.
[/quote]

Sorry Paul, I still think you are telling yourself stories to justify behaviour that you know does cause distress to peds.

You say misplaced ownership, I say social responsibility. I'd rather we put energy into making roads safer rather than pavements more dangerous. But we won't agree so let's leave it here.


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101426"]
To be honest most people don't even notice them.
[/quote]

I disagree. Go onto any local newspaper website and look at any cycling related story. The comments section will be full of 'bloodycyclistsjumpingredlightsridingonpavementsnotpayingroadtaxgettinginmyway' ravings.


----------



## DrSquirrel (27 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> I'll use that phrase wherever and whenever I like, thank you.
> I have a friend who is a policeman and his attitude to pavement cyclists, and apparently Northumbria Polices attitude as well is exactly the same as mine. If cyclists are using pavements in preference to busy roads and they aren't endangering people in the process then leave them be. There's a massive difference between a considerate pavement cyclist and a moron tearing along with no respect or consideration for peds.
> 
> If people want to play at policing the pavements and ridding them of all cyclists then good luck to them but they might want to consider where to draw the line between "educating" cyclists and intimidating them, because the last video of such an occurrence that I saw posted on this forum looked like borderline intimidation to me. And will people be educating the police and PCSO's who cycle on the pavement as well?



They fail to consider knock on effects, negative view on pavement cyclists, and negative view on cyclists that ride on the road when they could "just ride on the path".

Pavements are for kids on bikes, adults... the road. Stop allowing the myth that the road is as dangerous as people seem to think it is.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101435"]
So, put your money where your mouth is. Come to Brum and we'll take a look around. And talk to people. Then hopefully you'll see that you're making mountains out of molehills, and can let that go and put your energy into road safety.
[/quote]

Sure, I'd be happy to spend a Saturday in Brum with a questionnaire polling people on how cyclists on pavements make them feel and whether they perceive a difference between safe cyclists and unsafe ones. Will you come to Tottenham and do the same?


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101438"]
No need. I can see every day that the vast proportion of pavement cyclists bother no-one. Either Tottenham has the highest proportional of disruptives in the country, or you're choosing to lump the majority of harmless riders in with the idiots.

Interesting that you accept that pavement cycling can be done without being disruptive -'they make me smile'.

I've asked this before and not had a response, but what of the pavement cyclists on shared used pavements? Are they disruptive, or does behaviour suddenly changed on these sections?
[/quote]

So I am prepared to test my assumptions but you are convinced that your observations are perfectly objective so have no need to test them. But how can what you _* see *_every day tell you what people _*feel*_?

On your other question, I have responded to that several times in the past. UTFlippingS.

Right, I'm off to risk my neck cycling the mean streets of Tottenham. Enjoy your day.


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Mar 2011)

What about pedestrians in cycle lanes? Menacing us cyclists with their strolling and meandering 

There's one of the more recent contraflow cycle lanes in Lancaster on which I only ever see pedestrians... I have seen a couple of cyclists on it but going in the wrong direction.

I'm with MisterPaul on this one... if pavements cyclists aren't causing a problem they're not a problem


----------



## Glow worm (27 Mar 2011)

brokenbetty said:


> Sure, I'd be happy to spend a Saturday in Brum with a questionnaire polling people on how cyclists on pavements make them feel and whether they perceive a difference between safe cyclists and unsafe ones. Will you come to Tottenham and do the same?



That's maybe partly because so many people in the UK seem to be permanantly angry at one thing or another. As cyclists we see it every day on the roads. Bile and vitriole seems never far from the surface and taking a pot shot at cyclists, pavement or otherwise seems to be top of the hit list these days. Ask them about petrol prices, tax evasion, or bendy bananas and it will be the same. Take a much more forward thinking, laid back country like Holland (as someone said above) and you'll get a totally different response. A lot of British people just need to take a deep breath, light a joint and calm down a bit.


----------



## PBancroft (27 Mar 2011)

Glow worm said:


> That's maybe partly because so many people in the UK seem to be permanantly angry at one thing or another. As cyclists we see it every day on the roads. Bile and vitriole seems never far from the surface and taking a pot shot at cyclists, pavement or otherwise seems to be top of the hit list these days. Ask them about petrol prices, tax evasion, or bendy bananas and it will be the same. Take a much more forward thinking, laid back country like Holland (as someone said above) and you'll get a totally different response. A lot of British people just need to take a deep breath, *light a joint and calm down a bit*.



BloodypotheadsruiningthiscountryinfringingonmyrightsandpretendingtobesocoolbloodyhippiesthelotofthemIbettheyridebikesonthepavementtooshouldbetaxedlikecarsandgetofftheroadI'vegotrightstoothey'reamenace.


----------



## ManiaMuse (27 Mar 2011)

Lol, someone revived my 8 month old thread.


----------



## mickle (27 Mar 2011)

Lol, Pbancroft broke the forum.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Mar 2011)

+1


martynjc1977 said:


> I usually register my annoyance at pavement cyclists by not yielding my position on the path, thus forcing the cyclist to either stop or to move onto the road.


----------



## PBancroft (27 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> Lol, Pbancroft broke the forum.



Finally, my plan comes together!


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (27 Mar 2011)

Heartened to see many replies from the old-fashioned, gung-ho attitude to cycling, where you ride properly and confidently on the road, taking the risks that are part of the deal.

Objecting to people cycling on the pavement is not "being a policeman". It is a perfectly reasonable response to inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour. Cyclists do it too, and rightly so. Check out http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/ if you haven't already seen it.

"Consider the real reason why children on pavements make you smile and adults behaving the same don't and you'll see what your real issue is." Well, obviously it's because they're very small and have Mr Men helmets! You’re basing your argument on the idea that we should treat you as if you are a tiny child. I rest my case.

I think a few of these people could learn to ride properly, with a bit of encouragement, but most belong on public transport.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101441"]
What am I to observe? [/quote]

You're not supposed to observe anything. You're supposed to ask people how they feel and listen to what they tell you, not assume you know what they think based on appearances



> Why not be bothered about pavement cyclists where *they're allowed*, and bothered about pavement cyclists where *they're not allowed* but behaving in the same way?



Answered many times. UTFS


----------



## snailracer (27 Mar 2011)

If the council man paints some lines on the pavement and puts up a few blue signs, not only does it became legal and therefore safe to cycle on the pavement, it also becomes morally acceptable and the pedestrians are then considered the nuisance! Awesome, innit?


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

Cycling on the pavement is illegal. Don't want to be labelled a moron? Then don't do it.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101451"]
...yet you claim that all but a couple of pavement cyclists you've only seen are causing a nuisance. And one example you gave yesterday that you said wasn't causing a nuisance, without you asking anyone how they feel about it....[/quote]

I said explicitly I only saw one who _*I*_ thought was considerate. See what I did there?I acknowledged that this was just my opinion and was careful not to extrapolate my experience to a universal truth.

Similarly, I base my assertion that pedestrians find pavement cyclists inconsiderate and frightening on the people who tell me "I don't like cyclists on the pavement, I find them inconsiderate and frightening". I don't invent a second class of cyclists and claim that the pedestrians are really talking about those other guys.

But as I said I'm happy to join you for afternoons in Brum and Tottenham canvassing more views.


[QUOTE 1101451"]
Sorry, but you haven't.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I have. I suggest you try that search again.


----------



## Glow worm (27 Mar 2011)

PBancroft said:


> BloodypotheadsruiningthiscountryinfringingonmyrightsandpretendingtobesocoolbloodyhippiesthelotofthemIbettheyridebikesonthepavementtooshouldbetaxedlikecarsandgetofftheroadI' vegotrightstoothey'reamenace.


----------



## JamesAC (27 Mar 2011)

Trumpettom001 said:


> I got told be someone walking along the pavement to "get off the F"£$%ING road"... we cyclists just can't win.


Cycling on the pavement in illegal; cycling on the road (usually) isn't.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101449"]
Pavement cycling does not have to be "inconsiderate and dangerous behaviour" and in the main is neither. [/quote]
No, it is always inconsiderate because of the hazard of bicycles’ handlebars and general size and weight, and the relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians. This means pedestrians either have to keep out of your way or force you to go around them. All of this is annoying, and it is plainly inconsiderate to annoy other people. Frankly, it’s absurd that you should need this explained to you.

And when cyclists ride at faster than walking pace, which they generally do (in the real world, if not in the world you inhabit), it is also potentially dangerous, sometimes extremely so. I have nearly been knocked over by quite a few idiots coming past me from behind, not at any great speed. This is all routine behaviour by pavement cyclists. Again, this should not need explaining.

It is also illegal, which ought to concern you, but clearly does not, which shows your immaturity.

Children have nothing to do with this. Small children ride very small bicycles or tricycles, very slowly, with an adult alongside. No-one minds getting out of their way. Older children one makes allowances for as well, but then there comes a point when they are old enough to take the plunge and ride on the road. Even then, if they lack the confidence to turn right at a busy junction, for example, they can get off and walk.

What you don’t seem to grasp is that driving or riding anything on a road is a serious, adult activity, with attendant risks. You are not entitled to pass those risks onto others just because you don’t fancy it.

On the other hand, I am really pleased that so many people on this site are genuine cyclists who understand what cycling ought to be about. I don’t think the excitement of Marble Arch, pre traffic lights, would have fazed them. Not everyone has become soft and silly.

[QUOTE 1101449"]
I think "chillax" is the word that youngsters use these days.
[/quote]
Well, you should know.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101459"]
I can remember your response. It was about blue signs and white lines. And my question was about unmarked shared-use.
[/quote]

Ah, you do remember the thread then. And yes, you made the same strawman misinterpretation that time as well.

But as I said a long time ago, let's leave it here. I've gone through these strawmen before.


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101459"]
Ok, so your view is that all pavement cycling is inconsiderate because it always has a negative impact on other pavement users?
[/quote]


If a cyclist is older than 12 then they should not be on the pavement. They should grow a pair and learn to ride legally on the road.


----------



## MontyVeda (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101462"]
...

If we're to continue to promote cycling in this country for everyone then we need to be real about this, and not seek to justify what drivers push us to. Pavement cycling doesn't have to inconvenience anyone, and in the main doesn't. Let's not pretend something different and thereby restrict the use of this fantastic machine.
[/quote]

Here Here!


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101462"]

If we're to continue to promote cycling in this country for everyone then we need to be real about this, and not seek to justify what our internal drivers push us to. Pavement cycling doesn't have to inconvenience anyone, and in the main doesn't. Let's not pretend something different and thereby restrict the use of this fantastic machine.
[/quote]

The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101462"]
I didn't forget your comment. I also remember that it stalled then as well when we got to the unmarked question.
[/quote]

On the "unmarked" question, my view is that cyclists using these facilities almost certainly are causing peds distress (and didn't you have exactly that problem with an elderly gentleman?)

However unlike basic pavement cycling where the conflict is entirely the fault of the cyclists invading pedestrian space, in this case the fault is the councils'. If bad signage in an area they have determined is safe for shared use causes two reasonable groups of users to come into conflict the signage should be sorted it out. 

As you can see you are wrong to represent me as saying "just because it's allowed that makes it ok". What I am saying is what I have always said, which is "it's ok when it's expected".

That is also my view on pavement cycling in Japan and Holland (though my experience of Dutch cyclists is that for preference they will be on a cyclepath or the road. I saw very little pavement cycling in Amsterdam other than the odd cheeky nip-over-the-pavement which I would condemn as selfish in the UK but as you note is accepted in Holland)

Incidentally, the reason that thread stalled is because I got bored correcting misrepresentation of my points. Which is exactly how I feel about this one and why this thread is about to go the same way


----------



## brokenbetty (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101467"]
So, if the only problem is the unexpected, all that needs to be done is to change the attitude. Not the behaviour, just the attitude of the non-cyclist
[/quote]

Oh, is that all? And you think the best way to change the way pedestrians feel about cyclists is to ignore, belittle or contradict them?

Good luck with that.


----------



## Bicycle (27 Mar 2011)

I have no moral right to add my thoughts on this thread...

I never, ever EVER ride on the pavement, but...

Many years ago I lived in Mile End and had to collect a car from service near Eltham....

I was VERY SHORT OF TIME.... and I dare say it was VERY IMPORTANT that I collected the car that day (although probably it wasn't)

So...

I cycled through the Blackwall Tunnel to collect the car.

How I got though without becoming the radiator ornament for an artic I do not know.

That act of disgracefully dangerous cycling and my display of a complete disregard for the Laws of the Realm render any comment I have on the pavement issue utterly without value or credibility.

Having said that, I think the road is the place for bicycles and the pavement the place for pedestrians.

And since 1993 I have come to the conclusion that Motorway tunnels under the Thames are no place for bicycles either.


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101466"]
Not true at all. In fact the government issued guidance alongside the introduction of fines for pavement riding which stated that they should be issued only when a cyclist is riding in a manner that would endanger others. And Paul Boateng stated in a letter that_ "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."
_
[/quote]

I refer you to post #141.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (27 Mar 2011)

Oh dear. How pathetic of misterpaul to ask for extra evidence from Brokenbetty’s witnesses so as to claim that as yet no-one has "really" expressed concern about this problem. In truth, they said ample, and clearly. I share brokenbetty’s frustration. I, too, have neither the time nor the inclination to correct every bit of nonsense. Some cyclists simply don’t care what pedestrians feel. But not, I am glad to say, all of them.

I suppose the clue was the 18,000 posts in four years.



reiver said:


> A few weeks ago I needed to travel a couple of miles on this road LINK. The road was busy, very fast and lots of HGVs. I used the path, did not see a single pedestrian. Was I really a selfish ignorant moron ?


Very different to rush hour London. I would say cycle by all means, but get off and walk, or pull over, if someone comes the other way. I think the basic rule is that if you upset them, it’s your fault, so be nice.


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> A few weeks ago I needed to travel a couple of miles on this road LINK. The road was busy, very fast and lots of HGVs. I used the path, did not see a single pedestrian. Was I really a selfish ignorant moron ?





No, but you have allowed yourself to be frightened off the road by the car. Funny thing about more cyclists using the road, traffic gets calmer and roads get safer.


----------



## 400bhp (27 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> No, but you have allowed yourself to be frightened off the road by the car. Funny thing about more cyclists using the road, traffic gets calmer and roads get safer.


You'll have to wait for his reply to see if he was frightened. It might be that he thought it was a risk not worth taking.


----------



## biglad (27 Mar 2011)

I've been cycling for under a week.

I bought my first bike (since I was a young lad anyway) on Thursday and since then have been out every day on it building my confidence up, getting my balance and so forth. I have ridden to and from work on Friday, Satuday and today. The route takes me through my council estate, onto a road, then to work. 

I ride on average at about 7-8mph according to the little computer I have on the bike. I spent just over a week reading threads on this very forum prior to making my purchase, trying to gain an understanding of what the cycling community it like generally, as well as ask for some advice and tips, and generally involve myself. Through reading the commuting forum, I quickly realised that road cycling seems absolutely terrifying. I watched videos of youtubes people posted, read horror stories and so forth. It almost put me off cycling if I'm being honest... almost. 

When I ride, I mostly ride on the pavement. apart from one leg of my journey where I do go out onto the road for about 5-10 minutes, then, when I turn at a junction of a much busier road, I go back on the path. Why? Because I have never cycled before, and I don't have the awareness of the road that comes from being a motorist. When I am riding, I am trying to take in a lot of things that aren't coming naturally to me yet and frankly, I'm scared to be on a busy road. My logic being that I am gradually building up to doing my whole journey on the road, but until I build up my awareness, and my confidence, I'm going to keep going the way I am, and certainly do not think I am in some sort of position whereby I owe someone an apology for it. I want to cycle. I'm not good at it. I'm slow. I don't know the road. I am learning. I am building up confidence. I don't want to endanger my life by being an ignorant road user.

When I approach someone from behind on my bike, I let them know that I'm approaching well in advance, and completely expect to go around them. I don't want to inconvenience a single soul. I always give a friendly "thanks mate" when I pass, and always give a visual indication of my intentions to go around pedestrians walking towards me. Again, offering thanks or apologies as I pass. From some of the post's, especially earlier on. My lack of confidence, and desire to build up my proficiency gradually makes me some sort of street thug, or peanut, and requires me to be hit with umbrellas. 

Early posts also indicate that since I am not frequently on the road, I should not be cycling at all. Is this the ultimatum? I go out onto the road as an unsafe cyclist or I don't go out at all? I do not accept this. Nor do I accept that I am acting irresponsibly. I feel a little saddened by the judgemental attitudes of some of the users posting on this thread. I do not wish to be patronised by people who do not know my skillset, confidence levels, cycling ability, road knowledge/awareness or anything else by saying "just get on the road!" or "you'll only learn by getting stuck in and doing it." 

I don't hold this opinion. I think a frightened, unaware cyclist on the road will put lives at risk much, much more so than a humble lad trying to better himself by building himself up gradually. And if that means I have to offer my thanks to pedestrians a little more, then do you forum users trully believe that its not a small sacrifice with a big picture in mind?

I think a lot of people will think I'm taking this personally, I'm not I assure you. I'm just trying to offer some thoughts on the matter. If after reading this you truly believe I have no right to be cycling at all, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why. If not, I'll happily plod along, getting better day by day.


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

biglad said:


> I've been cycling for under a week.
> 
> I bought my first bike (since I was a young lad anyway) on Thursday and since then have been out every day on it building my confidence up, getting my balance and so forth. I have ridden to and from work on Friday, Satuday and today. The route takes me through my council estate, onto a road, then to work.
> 
> ...





Find an adult Bikeability course in your area. It will help. Road experience will only come from riding on the road.


----------



## biglad (27 Mar 2011)

Thanks man. I am in the process of looking into some sort of proficiency course. I'm also building my time spent on the road up gradually each time I go out. There are things I need to overcome first though. Sometimes I get a bit wobbly when I look behind me for example. For reasons such as this, my original points still stand. I appreciate the tip though.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101477"]
Yes, pathetic to examine the issue in more detail.
[/quote]
Your whole case depends on not examining anything. You pretend that anyone not on the forum who has said they have a problem doesn’t’ “really” have a problem unless what they have said has been researched and published in a dissertation. Those on the forum don’t “really” have a problem because… well, because you say so. Plus any experiences we talk about didn’t “really” happen. So obviously there isn’t really a problem!

As for Japan. Ha! Look at this ridiculous behaviour. They’re even sillier than you are!
http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


[QUOTE 1101477"]
You really haven't read the thread have you? The problem isn't cyclists not being bothered about what peds feel, but others deciding for them what they feel when they really have no idea.”
[/quote]
No. That came from Brokenbetty, who knew perfectly well what other pedestrians thought, because she had asked them. Unlike you. You just decided to ignore what she told you because it didn’t suit you.

You gave yourself away when you said, “And if anyone with any experience of city living claims that you can get anywhere on a bike using quiet routes plus a minute or two of walking, then I really don't see the point in addressing such a strange and clearly questionable claim.”
Rubbish. There are always rat-runs. But you don’t bother to look them up because it’s easier for you to ride along the pavement.

[QUOTE 1101477"]
Great! So you now acknowledge that some pavement cycling is ok. It's a start....
[/quote]
Not a pavement. No pedestrians. Completely different.

On reflection, buggy pilots like you _should_ ride on the pavement, on a machine limited to 3 mph, with a crash helmet from Toys R Us, and an adult walking alongside.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (27 Mar 2011)

biglad said:


> I've been cycling for under a week. I bought my first bike (since I was a young lad anyway) on Thursday and since then have been out every day on it building my confidence up, getting my balance and so forth. I have ridden to and from work on Friday, Satuday and today. The route takes me through my council estate, onto a road, then to work.


Good luck with your course. They'll tell you everything you need to know. Cycling on the road isn't half as frightening as some people round here would have you believe. It's just a matter of know-how (which they'll teach you), and then confidence and practice. You'll get the hang of it!


----------



## Clandy (27 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101485"]Thanks, I couldn't have found a better clip myself. It shows cyclists riding responsibly on a pavement, politely giving way to pedestrians, and causing none to deviate or even flinch. If you wanted to show why pavement cycling is wrong I'm afraid you've shot yourself in the foot.
[/quote]

Cycling on the pavement is legal in Japan. It is _illegal_ in the UK. There is a fundamental difference there. Try to justify it any way you want, if you are a pavement cyclist, you are breaking the law. See Rule #64 of the Highway Code, it is unequivocal. 
You are also helping to bring cycling as a whole down in the eyes of the non-cycling population.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101487"]
Thanks, we know all that. We also know that the authorities over here are ok with responsible pavement cyclists, despite the law.
[/quote]



You're speaking for 'all' now are you? Where I live you will be told to get off the pavement. In town you will be stopped and handed an on the spot fine. If you are riding on the pavement you are breaking the law. Stop being a baby, and get in the road.


Highway Code.

*Rule #64*
You *MUST NOT* cycle on a pavement.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101489"]
Lovely bracing ride into work this morning along one of the busiest roads in Birmingham. Didn't need to use the pavement.
[/quote]
Well, of course you didn't. Finally, you seem to be getting the point!

If the youtube clip from Japan is representative of rush-hour pavements in Japan, there must be accidents all the time. If you can't see that, you must have even less understanding of human behaviour than I thought. But then again, the 18,000 posts was a pretty good clue to what's really going on with you. No wonder you think there are so few "irresponsible" cyclists on the pavements. They'd have to be doing thirty through a crowd of toddlers before you noticed anything amiss.

The law is the law. Plenty of police forces do enforce it, even if some are too stretched and have to prioritise other things. Paul Boeteng is not in the Government. Do you not remember the General Election? It was quite well publicised. In any case, even his fatuous comments did not relate to competent, but selfish, adults who ride on the pavement for preference, which is what this problem is mainly about.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101489"]
You can see the bit about the police and government allowing responsible pavement cycling. 
[/quote]

Please, be my guest and post reference.


----------



## Origamist (28 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> If the youtube clip from Japan is representative of rush-hour pavements in Japan, there must be accidents all the time. If you can't see that, you must have even less understanding of human behaviour than I thought. But then again, the 18,000 posts was a pretty good clue to what's really going on with you. No wonder you think there are so few "irresponsible" cyclists on the pavements. They'd have to be doing thirty through a crowd of toddlers before you noticed anything amiss.



In Japan, there is presumed liability if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian on the pavement. The courts, I understand, come down hard on cyclists who injure pedestrians and award considerable compensation to the victims.

Many cyclists who ride on the pavement have an understandable but skewed take on dangers they face on the roads and, analogously, whilst many pedestrians (particularly more vulnerable ones: the elderly, infirm or children) justifiably feel annoyed or are fearful of inconsiderate, Mr Toad-like cyclists who hurtle along pavements, the threat of harm posed to pedestrians is overstated and rarely set in a wider road danger reduction context. As ever, perceived risk trumps actual risk.


----------



## Jezston (28 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist = crankarm, or hackers?


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101494"]
Quoted yesterday, and easily findable with the simple Googling which you've done to find the HC references.
[/quote]



I'm asking you for links to references to back up your claim that government and police say it is ok to cycle on pavements. Please provide them.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101495"]
I've had plenty and the response, both from beat bobbies and managerially, is that if they're not bothering anyone then they're happy for them to continue.
[/quote]

This is purely anecdotal and means nothing. Please provide the links requested.


----------



## Jezston (28 Mar 2011)

Just googled 'home office guidance pavement cycling' and got this:

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php



> On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
> 
> "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."
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Mar 2011)

+1


Clandy said:


> The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> You're speaking for 'all' now are you? Where I live you will be told to get off the pavement. In town you will be stopped and handed an on the spot fine. If you are riding on the pavement you are breaking the law. Stop being a baby, and get in the road.
> 
> 
> Highway Code.
> ...



Because it is technicaly against the law does not automaticaly mean that it is wrong or that it shouldn't be challenged. Using the logic that it is against the law and therefor should not be done at all then all men, until recently would have had to practice their archery on a Sunday.
I think a certain amount of careful and responsible riding on the pavement is perfectly acceptable and if done with respect is a good way of showing the law up for being unnecessary and in need of modification. When I am a pedestrian I am only really bothered by the cyclists who race down the path without proper care. The careful responsible riders (which seem to be the majority) are not a problem at all.


----------



## Cyclopathic (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101501"]
Incidentally, I've just taken my daily hour-long walk through the city centre. I saw 7 pavement cyclists. None of them were causing any problem for pedestrians. All courteous and responsible cycling, giving way and staying out of the path of walkers. I don't think I saw a ped even lifting their head, most of them didn't notice the cyclists.

Conversely, I had to jump out of the way of one car which was being driven at inappropriate speed through a pedestrianised area. The driver had no intention of giving way to me.

And as for the pedestrians! Sheesh, it's like a slalom.
[/quote]


I will be contravercial and say that in my opinion a cyclist who dismounts and wheels their bike through a pedestrian area can often cause more of an obstruction than a rider who stays on their bike and makes their way carefuly through the area. I think I'm much more likely to clobber some poor sod with my pedal when I'm wheeling my bike than I am when riding. Like every aspect of road use and indeed life, if done with care and respect then many of the problems fall away,


----------



## mickle (28 Mar 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I will be contravercial and say that in my opinion a cyclist who dismounts and wheels their bike through a pedestrian area can often cause more of an obstruction than a rider who stays on their bike and makes their way carefuly through the area. I think I'm much more likely to clobber some poor sod with my pedal when I'm wheeling my bike than I am when riding. Like every aspect of road use and indeed life, if done with care and respect then many of the problems fall away,



Yup.


----------



## suecsi (28 Mar 2011)

I do often think this as I dismount to go through the pedestrian area in Kingston town centre. I always obey the rules on my way home, as it can be really busy, and I still see people cycling through there regardless. The shared use section through to the station is so full of pedestrians (why do students have to walk in groups of 20 spread right across?) that I don't bother there, where it is legal to cycle.

I do cycle through the pedestrian area in the morning, as I pass through at 07:45 and there is no-one about apart from the odd street cleaner or those motorised mini road sweepers, or the bin men. The shops don't open till 09:30.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101501"]
Incidentally, I've just taken my daily hour-long walk through the city centre. I saw 7 pavement cyclists. None of them were causing any problem for pedestrians. All courteous and responsible cycling, giving way and staying out of the path of walkers. I don't think I saw a ped even lifting their head, most of them didn't notice the cyclists.

Conversely, I had to jump out of the way of one car which was being driven at inappropriate speed through a pedestrianised area. The driver had no intention of giving way to me.

And as for the pedestrians! Sheesh, it's like a slalom.
[/quote]

More anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101500"]
On the contrary, it's necessary to make progress with this. The law is clear but so is the guidance, and they're contradictory. So the next step is to look at what's happening on the street. In the absence of anything to support your claim that "you will be fined" for pavement riding in your area, you could come up with some stats on fines. Failing that, speak to the people who police the streets. In Brum, they'll say that they won't ticket you if you're not causing a nuisance.
[/quote]

Purely anecdotal. Hard evidence please.


----------



## Jezston (28 Mar 2011)

You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.

You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.

I provided you with this, and you have not responded.

Kindly start acting with a little more dignity or STFU.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

Jezston said:


> You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.
> 
> You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.
> 
> ...



I did not see any evidence that riding on the pavement is no longer against the law.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101508"]
Look up......

You've had the hard evidence, you've had the anecdotal evidence which compliments it and you've had a clear explanation as to why both go together.
[/quote]


Anecdotal evidence means nothing. It is unsubstantiated. I could just as easily write that every copper I know insists on nicking every cyclist they see on the pavement. It would be meaningless without evidence, just as your anecdotes are meaningless without evidence.

As for cycling on the pavement, stop trying to justify illegal behaviour, take the stabilisers off your bike, and get in the road.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

Jezston said:


> You keep demanding evidence from people Clandy, but decline to provide any yourself or comment on evidence given.
> 
> You asked for proof that HO guidance states that police should not prosecute pavement cyclists unless they are being a nuisance.
> 
> ...



Dignity? Try not telling people to STFU, and I might listen to that, but as it is I tend to ignore hypocrites.


----------



## mightyquin (28 Mar 2011)

I sometimes ride for short stretches on the pavement, if I do I go very slowly and then only if the pavements clear. I really don't see why that should be a problem for anyone. I've been hit a fair few times by inconsiderate pushchair wielding mums before!

In my immediate area there are cycle lanes marked on the roads (often ignored by cars/buses who block them), and some stretches of pavement with a cycle lane marked on them, which pedestrians totally ignore. 

There are also some long stretches of A road with a pavement on one side, which are rarely used by pedestrians anyway. 

On my commute to work I can cross a major road junction by going straight over, with the traffic, and cycle for a short section on the pavement to get to the entrance for the car park, or I can take a left hand filter lane and then have to cross two very busy lanes of traffic to get to a filter road to the car park, which also crosses another two very busy lanes. I'd rather do a little to preserve my life and take a shortcut that inconveniences no one, even if it is technically against the law. 

It's not a black and white issue. To say 'never' ride on pavements makes the shared use cycle path/footpath thing a bit silly - is the pedestrian breaking the law by stepping into the cycle lane side and vice versa? 

I don't cycle on pavements as a rule, but there are always exceptions to every rule.


----------



## classic33 (28 Mar 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Because it is technicaly against the law does not automaticaly mean that it is wrong or that it shouldn't be challenged. Using the logic that it is against the law and therefor should not be done at all *then all men, until recently would have had to practice their archery on a Sunday*.




Little mistake on that one. See:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/united-kingdom
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29179


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (28 Mar 2011)

If the police are overstretched they're bound to prioritise offences, and in some areas maybe they don't do much about selfish cyclists. So what? It's still against the law. In any case, considerate people don't need to be told that it's illegal - they don't do it anyway because they are considerate. It really is like listening to a spoilt child.

And ill-informed statements made by an out-of-office politician who never stepped out of his chauffer-driven car are no longer relevant, if they ever were.


----------



## Arfcollins (28 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> In any case, considerate people don't need to be told that it's illegal - they don't do it anyway because they are considerate.



Mmm... Don't be too sure about this, Oldfashioned. I am both a considerate cyclist and a considerate motorist. I also cycle on the pavement sometimes when I judge that it is the best thing to do, illegal or not. 

Picture 3 miles of single carriageway A-road (40mph) with the obligatory 2 foot wide piece of pink tarmac at the edge - the 'cycle-lane'. Imagine if you will the traffic at around 7am, fairly low volume so it is fast, doing 40. Listen to the sound of a skip lorry's wing mirror coming past your ear at a relative speed of around 30mph or, should you deviate slightly, listen to the sound of that mirror clouting your head. But on your left is an empty pavement. The average number of pedestrians at that time of the morning is 2 in those 3 miles, easy to considerately pass.

For me it is a no-brainer. In the evening when the traffic in my direction is heavier and slower and the number of pedestrians is much higher it is not necessary, sensible or considerate to cycle on the pavement.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101518"]
It's nothing to do with prioritising offences, and no-one is disputing what the law says. What has happened is that those in power have taken a sensible approach to allow those who don't feel safe riding on-road to cycle responsibly on the pavement.

What it comes down oldbloke is that it doesn't matter what you think. Allowances have been made to enable more people to ride bikes, and that's fantastic. It's disappointing to find a cyclist so vehemently opposed to this, to the end that he won't allow himself to look objectively at the wider picture.

Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

If you've genuinely got a problem with this then I'd suggest that you attempt to drum up some support and start a campaign. It will be far more effective than doling out reception-year insults on a cycling forum.

Now, some deep breathing......
[/quote]

Spoken like a spoilt child.

Brokenbetty, Clandy and I (and a couple of others) have tried debating with you rationally, but you just can't do it, can you? Which is why Betty gave up on you, and why I am doing so as well.

18,000 posts…


Arfcollins: No, we were talking about pavement in cities, with pedestrians etc etc.


----------



## mickle (28 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> Spoken like a spoilt child.



Do you have to be so unpleasant?


----------



## Bicycle (28 Mar 2011)

I shouldn't write this... But I will.

This thread is addictively entertaining.

I have no view on this topic, but I could read all day the thoughts of those who do.

And for what it's worth I agree with everything everyone has written, to a lesser or greater extent.

Outstanding.


----------



## mangaman (28 Mar 2011)

jonny jeez said:


> I've never proclaimed to hold the "answer"
> 
> But I wouldn 't start from a position of assuming that the "majority" of cyclists are too scared to ride on the road (they are not, in my experience) or that they will be aware of pedestirans when on the pavement (they mostly dont care, in my experience) or will get off when asked (they never do...in my experience).
> 
> ...





This is my experience.

A 5 year old pootling along a pavement learning to ride is fine.

The vast majority of pavement cyclists on my walk to work are cycling as fast as they would on a road - to cut a few minutes off their commute.


----------



## Clandy (28 Mar 2011)

mangaman said:


> This is my experience.
> 
> A 5 year old pootling along a pavement learning to ride is fine.
> 
> The vast majority of pavement cyclists on my walk to work are cycling as fast as they would on a road - to cut a few minutes off their commute.





Mine too. As anecdotal evidence is all it takes to convince 18,000 post boy, then he should now be convinced of the stupidity of adults cycling on the pavement.


----------



## mangaman (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101518"]
It's nothing to do with prioritising offences, and no-one is disputing what the law says. What has happened is that those in power have taken a sensible approach to allow those who don't feel safe riding on-road to cycle responsibly on the pavement.

What it comes down oldbloke is that it doesn't matter what you think. Allowances have been made to enable more people to ride bikes, and that's fantastic. It's disappointing to find a cyclist so vehemently opposed to this, to the end that he won't allow himself to look objectively at the wider picture.

Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

If you've genuinely got a problem with this then I'd suggest that you attempt to drum up some support and start a campaign. It will be far more effective than doling out reception-year insults on a cycling forum.

Now, some deep breathing......
[/quote]

I haven't really followed this thread Mr P - but I'm surprised to see you taking this line.

I always thought you were a stickler for road safety - quite rightly.

I'll try to video my walk to work - there's about a 200 metre footpath which twists and turns and is very narrow. Every day I have to leap out of the way of some idiot on a bike barreling along it. I'll try to get dome phone footage - it's pure selfishness and corner cutting by commuting cyclists.

If it were cars - I'm sure you'd be one of the more vociferous opponents.


----------



## Tynan (28 Mar 2011)

all I'll say is that I'm regularly suprised by how intimidating a bike being ridden too fast on the pavement is

and how it isn't at all when it's done with consideration and care

simple as that for me


----------



## mangaman (28 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101527"]
Maybe, given the efforts of a few to intentionally cloud the issue, it's worth me repeating what I said a long time ago (or it might just be because you haven't followed the thread). That is that I share the same concerns of anyone who takes issue with irresponsible, dangerous pavement cyclists. 

That, and a whole lot of other stuff which I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to wade through.
[/quote]

As you say, I lost contact with this thread ages ago, sorry.

I agree it's about irresponsible pavement cyclists - although arguing pavement cycling is sort of OK at times is like arguing speeding in a car a tiny bit is OK at times when there's no-one looking.

I think the more we stay off the pavements the better we look as cyclists.

(I'm sure the thread has covered all this, so don't worry too much about replying! When I have a free few hours I'll read it.)


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101531"]


There is also the other view that a bicycle is a unique form of transport and shouldn't be boxed into a category alongside other modes of transport which are entirely different. If it's seen as a road vehicle then it's naturally pushed onto the road and into conditions. And then it excludes certain groups because it's not open to all, and this shouldn't be the case. 
[/quote]

Bicycles are, and always have been, road vehicles. It was cyclist groups who first lobbied for sealed roads. Most of us don't want to be confined to cycle routes, we want the freedom to roam anywhere we choose. If people insist on riding on pavements government will be forced into harsher restrictions on cycling.


----------



## forwater (29 Mar 2011)

Personally, with the way people drive around here, I'm not willing to risk my life just to make people happy. If I go to the store, I take the side-walk. On roads where there is no side-walk, I take the road. 

I know a woman who was clipped by a passing vehicle and had her arm broken! Not to mention I've heard stories of people who were hit by cars... I have no desire to be dropped into that whole mess.

Atlanta is a bad city for cyclists. I consider my safety first. Perhaps once I've gotten up a bit of confidence around crazy people in cars, then I'll give riding in the road a shot. For now, though, the side-walk's the road for me...

edit: I would also add that in the past when I've been walking on the side-walk and a cyclist approaches from either direction, I just step off of the path into the grass for a moment and let them by. It's not that big of a deal, really, and it doesn't annoy me one bit. I understand their reasons.


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

forwater said:


> Personally, with the way people drive around here, I'm not willing to risk my life just to make people happy. If I go to the store, I take the side-walk. On roads where there is no side-walk, I take the road.
> 
> I know a woman who was clipped by a passing vehicle and had her arm broken! Not to mention I've heard stories of people who were hit by cars... I have no desire to be dropped into that whole mess.
> 
> ...





The road environment in the US is very different from the UK.


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> Bicycles are, and always have been, road vehicles. It was cyclist groups who first lobbied for sealed roads. Most of us don't want to be confined to cycle routes, we want the freedom to roam anywhere we choose. If people insist on riding on pavements government will be forced into harsher restrictions on cycling.


You seem to forget that many cycle routes use shared pavements where cyclists and peds mingle freely. 
For the most part this works well and the only issues that I see on these routes are cyclists who travel too fast, weaving in and out of the peds who invariably walk in the cycle lane and the dog owners with those cartridge type dog leads that allow the dog the freedom to roam wherever it pleases. 

It is far too easy just to say that all pavement cycling is illegal and therefore shouldn't be tolerated. Each case should be judged on it's own merits, that's what the law is doing so I would suggest that people here try to look at it objectively. I personally have zero tolerance for irresponsible or dangerous pavement cyclists and I totally agree that these people need to be dealt with but in my experience they are a minority. 

All my cycling is done on road or if I'm using my hybrid for a leisurely ride along the coast with the family then I will use the shared pavements and cycle paths but because of this thread I made a note on my ride yesterday and I would say that seventy five percent of the cyclists that I encountered were riding on the pavement. So what should we do with these people? Do we force them onto the road and offer them a loan of a dog eared copy of Cyclecraft and tell them to get a backbone and get on with it or do we accept that they are a symptom of a greater problem that needs to be addressed?

To me there is no black and white answer to pavement cycling and I think that its disappointing that some posters feel that they have to resort to childish name calling to try and discredit Paul's argument.


----------



## mickle (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> If people insist on riding on pavements government will be forced into harsher restrictions on cycling.



Twaddle, '97 post boy', twaddle.


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101538"]
Oh, and this bit. For someone who has insisted on evidence and then ignored it when it's in front of them, I'm surprised that again you've taken to predicting the future, with no grounding.
[/quote]



http://road.cc/node/10375

http://road.cc/conte...social-cyclists

http://www.gazetteli...84229-27061624/

http://cycling.access-legal.co.uk/2...t-cyclists-dangerous-or-reckless-cycling.html


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (29 Mar 2011)

OK. Here is a little bit of pavement cycling that I tend to do on my commute.

There are usually fewer that 2 people about, the pavement is huge, and taking this route allows me to use quiet roads and avoid quite a big detour. The road to my left at the crossing near the end would be an alternative route, but it is closed to uphill traffic at the moment, and is much more dangerous than the route I take anyway. As I cross the pavement, I am on the middle ring, in 3rd (of 9) gears on the cassette, I would say, doing about walking pace.

Note, I am not afraid of busy roads; I use a lot of them on the commute, and negotiate some big, busy roundabouts as well. But cold hard logic tells me that the risk is reduced if I take the quiet route here.

Would people say that this is rude, inconsiderate and anti-social? Should I be fined for this?


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> Twaddle, '97 post boy', twaddle.





I know, only 97 posts, but then I think only 97 posts in eight months or so is pretty good*. 

On web forums 'The emptiest vessels make the most noise' is often proven.



*But then what do I know? I've only been cycling on Britain's roads for over forty years.


----------



## adds21 (29 Mar 2011)

MrGrumpyCyclist said:


> Would people say that this is rude, inconsiderate and anti-social? Should I be fined for this?



IMO, the use of pavements in your video is quite sensible. Sometimes common sense has to come into the equation.

I cycle on the pavement for half a mile or so of my evening commute. My reason being that is on a very fast, rural, uphill, A road, with pinch points which I feel make it at best inconvenient for other road users, and at worst dangerous for me. On top of that, there's a wide pavement next to the road which in 2 years of commuting, I've seen maybe 3 or 4 people use.

I only ever use the pavement when travelling uphill, as downhill I'm feel more part of the traffic due to my speed.

Quite frankly I don't care what the "law", or anyone else says about it. I feel safer on the pavement for that stretch, and I'm not doing any harm there. On the couple of times I've met pedestrians I've always given way to them.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Mar 2011)

adds21 said:


> Sometimes common sense has to come into the equation.
> ...
> I cycle on the pavement for half a mile or so of my evening commute. My reason being that is on a very fast, rural, uphill, A road, with pinch points which I feel make it at best inconvenient for other road users, and at worst dangerous for me. On top of that, there's a wide pavement next to the road which in 2 years of commuting, I've seen maybe 3 or 4 people use.
> ...
> ...



All sensible and pragmatic 

There's some right stick up their backsides people here


----------



## mickle (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> On web forums 'The emptiest vessels make the most noise' is often proven.
> 
> 
> 
> *But then what do I know? I've only been cycling on Britain's roads for over forty years.



Yup, and Gadaffi has been in power in Libya for forty years - doesn't make him right either.


----------



## JonnyBlade (29 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?
> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



It's not legal! The police will stop you for cycling in a pedestrian designated route. Isn't this the same argument for cyclists running red lights? Next time I walk anywhere I'll walk in the cycle path and everyone can ride around me. Common sense surely?


----------



## biglad (29 Mar 2011)

400bhp said:


> All sensible and pragmatic
> 
> There's some right stick up their backsides people here



Its quite saddening I think, that there are people on the thread who seem (and I put the emphasis on seem) to think that cyclists like adds and myself deserve to have our bikes taken away from us and have no right to be cycling. There are some dark corners on this board, where people can be very judgemental, single minded, sarcastic, and just downright rude.

I'm just trying to lose a little weight, get myself fitter, and ease myself into road cycling without putting myself, or motorists at risk. I have every intention of becoming a road cyclist and the last few days I've done more and more, but when I'm ready for it.


----------



## mickle (29 Mar 2011)

What biglad said.


----------



## Dan B (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> On web forums 'The emptiest vessels make the most noise' is often proven.




Purely anecdotal. Hard evidence please.


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> Yup, and Gadaffi has been in power in Libya for forty years - doesn't make him right either.



Link.


----------



## snapper_37 (29 Mar 2011)

I have no issue with cyclists on pavements where safe to do so (I do it myself in a section where a shared path becomes ped and then goes back into shared - for some obscure reason). WOuldn't do it in a busy ped area .... no need really since a lot seem to just walk out into the road anyway. 

I do bloody hate those cyclists who jump off into the gutter without even looking.


----------



## Domeo (29 Mar 2011)

mickle said:


> "But these days most cyclists are self-obsessed, whiney infants".
> 
> I think you might have taken a wrong turn back there. This, in case you haven't noticed, is a cycling forum. Populated mostly by cyclists. The hint was in the title.



Doesn't make it any less true though, does it?


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Mar 2011)

biglad said:


> .... and ease myself into road cycling without putting myself, or motorists at risk. I have every intention of becoming a road cyclist and the last few days I've done more and more, but when I'm ready for it.



Put your mind at rest, you'll not do much damage to motorists  

Do have a think about some bikeability training or joining a bike to work guided ride if your intention is to ride on the road. 

Mostly it's about road position, riding predictably, good observation, and anticipating hazards in time to deal with them. I started out riding the road, with advice from people on here, and my local bike shop (they had a far better route that they recommended over the one I was taking).


----------



## Rochenko (29 Mar 2011)

Another anecdote and/or data point from over here in Cardiff. A couple of years ago, whilst cycling along the path alongside Ninian Road with my then 18-month old son in the child seat, I was stopped by a copper who asked me why I wasn't cycling on the road. I pointed out that the road (with two lines of parked cars and plenty of speeders) was obviously a more dangerous place to cycle than a wide path with hardly any pedestrians on it. He agreed, and let me continue. 

BTW, that wasn't a straw man, Clandy. Mickle was pointing out that you had employed a fallacy of your own, i.e. an argument from authority.


----------



## summerdays (29 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> No, it is always inconsiderate because of the hazard of bicycles’ handlebars and general size and weight, and the relative speeds of cyclists and pedestrians. This means pedestrians either have to keep out of your way or force you to go around them.



The hazard of the bicycles handlebars, weight and size is still there even if you are walking with your bike. In fact my bike is usually more unweildy when I'm not cycling it. 

I have a narrow alleyway that provides a well used cut through that I use frequently as do many other cyclists and pedestrians. It is only 1 - 1.5 meters wide if that, and I have been known to ride down it - as I am usually through slightly quicker (5mph) than if I walk(3mph). If I meet someone it is a bit of a close pass but I actually take up more room off the bike standing beside it. That said I normally get off if I meet anyone in the alleyway or wait if I'm about to go down it and someone is coming the other way. Nobody seems to get upset with the cyclists using it as they are considerate when they meet anyone. At the other end of the alleyway its reversed as it turns into a lane with no pavement and the pedestrians wander all over the lane. Again I wait patiently behind the pedestrians and parents sometimes fuss to get their children out of the way ... but I just say it's fine ... I wait till I can safely pass and carry on my journey.




Clandy said:


> If a cyclist is older than 12 then they should not be on the pavement. They should grow a pair and learn to ride legally on the road.



Actually the law says all cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement so theoretically that includes 2 year olds too .... do you want them on the road? If you are under 16 you can normally get away with it since it is prosecuted by a FPN, although the police can stop you below 16 to say that you should be cycling more sensibly on the pavement.

As for my 13 yo I wouldn't let her cycle anywhere ... I don't even let her walk on her own if I can help it ... she has very poor road sense. Whereas my youngest child at 10 I would let cycle some routes. The age someone develops road sense varies it is difficult to slap an arbitrary age on it.




Clandy said:


> The more people who ride illegally on the pavement the more government will introduce restrictions on cyclists. The selfish, ignorant, morons who ride on the pavement should be fined heavily and their bicycles confiscated and sold for charity. Those idiots are a damned nuisance who do all cyclists an enormous disservice, and are responsible for damaging cycling as a whole.



I would agree to that one - but only if the reverse was true and actually followed through ... the idea of those cars that are ridden up onto the pavement being crushed would give me a really large smile. Or even those who ignore advice in the highway code about parking over pedestrian crossing points or at/near junctions.




biglad said:


> I've been cycling for under a week.
> 
> I bought my first bike (since I was a young lad anyway) on Thursday and since then have been out every day on it building my confidence up, getting my balance and so forth. I have ridden to and from work on Friday, Satuday and today. The route takes me through my council estate, onto a road, then to work.
> 
> When I ride, I mostly ride on the pavement. apart from one leg of my journey where I do go out onto the road for about 5-10 minutes,



As others have said - get some training ... I started like you on the pavement on all but the quietest of side roads and gradually built up my confidence and ability (and I still remember plucking up the courage to do my first multi-lane roundabout in the middle of town! I don't have a problem with considerate pavement cycling especially for those who are maybe not ready for the busier roads. (As well as training I recommend the book Cyclecraft).


----------



## brokenbetty (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101553"]
I've just had a very helpful email back from West Midlands Police. I'll paste it up later, but basically it reflects the Home Office guidance of a reasonable approach. 

Is that still anecdotal?
[/quote]

Here's a statement from the Pedestrians Association stating that contrary to your claims plenty of pedestrians do find pavement cycling a problem. Not because of some hypothetical tiny group of inconsiderate cyclists that give the good cyclists a bad name, just because of the physical problems of sharing the space with bikes when they aren't expected. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm

Or are these the wrong sort of pedestrians?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/407443.stm


----------



## brokenbetty (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101558"]
Read it again. Some find it a risk. Most of the peds the man referred to find it an 'irritation'. What does this mean?
[/quote]

 wrong sort of pedestrians it is then!

It means your idea of what is an acceptable cost to impose on the people you share a space with is very different to mine.


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101558"]
Read it again. Some find it a risk. Most of the peds the man referred to find it an 'irritation'. What does this mean?
[/quote]

I understand 'irritate' to mean someone doesn't like something. So it would appear, in that article, that the majority of pedestrians don't like cyclists on the pavement. I have to agree with them, when I am walking, it pisses me right off to see grown adults cycling on the pavement.


----------



## Dan B (29 Mar 2011)

If the purpose of the law is to prosecute activities on the basis that people find them merely _irritating_, I have a long list of stuff that needs looking at which starts with R&B music, the Northern Line, meaningless buzzphrases including but not limited to "at the end of the day", "going forward" and "in the real world", and anyone who thinks that a Sturmey Archer hubbed wheel can be fitted or removed just by putting an assortment of nuts on in whatever random configuration they happen to hand. I would welcome the introduction of fixed-penalty fines against any or all of the preceding


----------



## brokenbetty (29 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> If the purpose of the law is to prosecute activities on the basis that people find them merely _irritating_, I have a long list of stuff that needs looking at



As Paul pointed out, the point isn't legal=ok, illegal=not ok, the point is whether his assertion that all pedestrians are only bothered about a small subset of inconsiderate cyclists is valid.

The law is relevant here only in as much as pedestrians will expect bikes in shared areas but not on standard pavements (unless one's view is that peds should be expecting bikes at all times of course)

I'm not sure why he then sidetracked himself by what a policeman did or didn't say, as he now seems to be saying the legality does matter, but IMO it's a red herring for exact the reasons you give.


----------



## Domeo (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101518"]
Cyclists who have cause to ride on the pavement and do it sensibly will continue to do so, knowing that they are breaking a law and accepting that if a police officer wanted to issue a fine then he/she could, but also knowing that it's unlikely because we live in a world of tolerance and compromise. And also knowing that the majority of the general public don't care as long as it doesn't affect them.

[/quote]

What all of those who think that it is acceptable to ride on the pavement are missing is that there is a considerable proportion of motorists who already think that we have no place on the road. The more the cyclists are seen riding on pavements the more it reinforces both the extant negative view of cyclists and the already entrenched view that we should only be riding on the pavement and not on the road.


----------



## biglad (29 Mar 2011)

summerdays said:


> As others have said - get some training ... I started like you on the pavement on all but the quietest of side roads and gradually built up my confidence and ability (and I still remember plucking up the courage to do my first multi-lane roundabout in the middle of town! I don't have a problem with considerate pavement cycling especially for those who are maybe not ready for the busier roads. (As well as training I recommend the book Cyclecraft).



Thanks Summerdays. once I get home I will have a look into getting a copy. I managed a longer ride today which included a mega busy Liverpool city centre road, I left my terror at home and got stuck in, and navigated the route with relative ease and only a minimum of soiled trousers! hah


----------



## Dan B (29 Mar 2011)

brokenbetty said:


> As Paul pointed out, the point isn't legal=ok, illegal=not ok


Well, I confess I haven't been monitoring the thread that closely in the last few pages, but that was _definitely_ the point being made by many of the previous posters further up. I am really quite cheered to hear that we've moved on to consider a more nuanced view that takes account of circumstances.




brokenbetty said:


> the point is whether his assertion that all pedestrians are only bothered about a small subset of inconsiderate cyclists is valid.


I don't know if it's a small subset or a large subset or a massive majority, so offer no opinion on that point. However, I would suggest that most pedestrians do not notice or remember considerate pavement cyclists at all, either because the cyclists are on deserted pavements and there are no pedestrians anyway, or because a "considerate" cyclist, by definition, is one who gives pedestrians (including the potentially blind/disabled/elderly and the children) no reasonable cause to be bothered. Instead they notice the inconsiderate cyclists, because those are the ones who injure or intimidate or worry them and cause them to have to take action. It's quite straightforward selection bias


----------



## brokenbetty (29 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> I don't know if it's a small subset or a large subset or a massive majority, so offer no opinion on that point. However, I would suggest that most pedestrians do not notice or remember considerate pavement cyclists at all, either because the cyclists are on deserted pavements and there are no pedestrians anyway, or because a "considerate" cyclist, by definition, is one who gives pedestrians (including the potentially blind/disabled/elderly and the children) no reasonable cause to be bothered



And that's where we differ, for several reasons.

Firstly, people's standards are different. What an individual thinks is being considerate isn't always perceived that way by the object of their consideration. There are hundreds of examples on this site alone of people who claim a ped cyclist or driver was out of order only to have the majority of respondents respond that they were in the wrong.

Secondly, what might not be a problem when a few people do it becomes one when many do. If we are serious about increasing cycle use we can't use the pavements as a training ground, there just isn't room. Putting more bikes on pavements means the pavements speed up. Putting more bikes on roads means the roads slow down. I know which I prefer

Thirdly, all the consideration in the world doesn't change the fact that when someone makes a mistake, being hit by a bike hurts a lot more than being hit by a shoulder. For goodness sake, the minimum safe overtaking space we expect from cars is as wide as some pavements!

Frankly, I think peds should be able to walk down the pavement texting and wearing an iPod and sidestep a dog turd without having to check behind them first in case a "considerate" cyclist happens to be overtaking. The pavement should be a place to be a human, not a meerkat.


----------



## brokenbetty (29 Mar 2011)

> The majority of pedestrians who write to the Pedestrian Association to complain that they're irritated by pavement cyclists don't like cyclists on the pavement? Right again.



No, the majority of pedestrians who write to the Pedestrian Association to complain about anything complain about pavement cycling. As you say, read my link 




> That's two of you now who have admitted that it's not about risk but just about irritation. Thankfully the Home Office and the police take a rather less antisocial and a more reasoned and tolerant approach.



Strawman. I've never said risk, It's you who thinks unless there is an immediate risk of injury the problem doesn't exist. Just like your scientific survey of pedestrians' feeling about pavement cycling was based on "I didn't see anyone flinch", you see what you want to see and dismiss everyone else as wrong sort of cyclist or wrong sort of ped.

Incidentally, the best thing about this thread is timing your commute every evening by the gaps in your posts 

Antisocial behaviour to me is degrading our shared environment and making people feel ill at ease is exactly that


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101568"]
That's two of you now who have admitted that it's not about risk but just about irritation. Thankfully the Home Office and the police take a rather less antisocial and a more reasoned and tolerant approach.
[/quote]

Don't put words in my mouth. I do think it is about risk I just omitted to say so. I'll go further and say this, whenever I am walking and I see an adult riding ILLEGALLY on the pavement I will deliberately obstruct them and tell them to get in the road.
As I said previously, learn to ride on the road, and stop trying to justify breaking the law.


----------



## Dan B (29 Mar 2011)

brokenbetty said:


> And that's where we differ, for several reasons.
> 
> Firstly, people's standards are different. What an individual thinks is being considerate isn't always perceived that way by the object of their consideration. There are hundreds of examples on this site alone of people who claim a ped cyclist or driver was out of order only to have the majority of respondents respond that they were in the wrong.
> 
> ...



Well, clearly we must have different ideas of what "considerate" means, because in my book if you're moving fast enough and close enough to a pedestrian on the pavement that you hit them if you make a mistake or they change direction suddenly, you're not cycling considerately you're buzzing them. And if you're hitting them hard enough that it hurts more than being shoulder-checked, doubly so!


I would be entirely happy to support you in your calls for pedestrians to be able to step sideways without the need for rear-view mirrors. But I don't see that as _necessarily_ incompatible with cycling just as it's not necessarily incompatible with jogging, or with rollerskating, or with use of a wheelchair.

On the "what if everyone did it" point, again I think that's a good point. But please understand I am not calling for an increase in pavement cyclists and I don't think such an increase is likely - with support and encouragement most of them will soon get the confidence to progress to carriageway cycling most of the time. But some of the invective displayed in this thread (not from you, I hasten to add) is about as far from "support" as Pluto from the sun.


----------



## ManiaMuse (29 Mar 2011)

Woop my thread still lives!


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101569"]



No sidetracking anywhere. It's how the thread developed. Clandy demanded evidence that had already been given to him. He dismissed it. Claimed that it was anecdotal. So I went straight to the horse's mouth.
[/quote]

Until you post links to references, your entire argument is anecdotal. maybe you need to get out of that armchair, actually get on a bicycle, and try out some real world cycling for a change. Then you might understand where those of us who object to pavement cycling are coming from.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Mar 2011)

Take a step back from this thread.

Then read it.

The issues are relatively petty.

We all know the type of pavement cyclists who cause issue and none of them will post here.


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I do think it is about risk I just omitted to say so. I'll go further and say this, whenever I am walking and I see an adult riding ILLEGALLY on the pavement I will deliberately obstruct them and tell them to get in the road.


Will this intimidation include women and old men?


----------



## adds21 (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I do think it is about risk I just omitted to say so. I'll go further and say this, whenever I am walking and I see an adult riding ILLEGALLY on the pavement I will deliberately obstruct them and tell them to get in the road.
> As I said previously, learn to ride on the road, and stop trying to justify breaking the law.



Would that include me, if you saw me riding on a rual pavement beside a busy, narrow A road, when you and I were the only ones on the pavement, and I gave you plenty of room?

If so, I can tell you now that my response would be two words, the second of which would be "off", and I'm generally a very laid back person.


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> Will this intimidation include women and old men?





It is not 'intimidation' to tell someone they are breaking the law and to get in the road.


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> It is not 'intimidation' to tell someone they are breaking the law and to get in the road.


If you deliberately obstruct someones path to confront them then I think that they may find you intimidating. And what are you going to do when they tell you to feck off? wrestle them to the ground and do a citizens arrest?


----------



## Clandy (29 Mar 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> . And what are you going to do when they tell you to feck off? wrestle them to the ground and do a citizens arrest?



Stand my ground as a pedestrian on a footpath and maintain they get in the road. Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL.

Highway Code rule #64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

It couldn't be simpler, or clearer.


----------



## summerdays (29 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> Stand my ground as a pedestrian on a footpath and maintain they get in the road. Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Highway Code rule #64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
> 
> It couldn't be simpler, or clearer.



Are you going to do that to the 5 year old? ... it is still illegal!


----------



## Jezston (29 Mar 2011)

I expect any old bill witnessing such an altercation would be more likely to have words with yourself than the pavement cyclist.


----------



## totallyfixed (29 Mar 2011)

I was going to wade in a few pages ago but now I'm enjoying myself too much


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (29 Mar 2011)

summerdays said:


> Are you going to do that to the 5 year old? ... it is still illegal!


Chronological or emotional age?


----------



## Clandy (30 Mar 2011)

summerdays said:


> <br /><br />
> <br />
> Are you going to do that to the 5 year old? ... it is still illegal!<br />


<br /><br /><br />
Since when were five year olds classed as adults?


----------



## summerdays (30 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> <br /><br /><br />
> Since when were five year olds classed as adults?



It is still illegal for them to cycle on the pavement. The law doesn't actually specify an age at which the rule doesn't apply - it literally says it is illegal.


----------



## Clandy (30 Mar 2011)

summerdays said:


> It is still illegal for them to cycle on the pavement. The law doesn't actually specify an age at which the rule doesn't apply - it literally says it is illegal.





Clandy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I do think it is about risk I just omitted to say so. I'll go further and say this, whenever I am walking and I see an *adult* riding ILLEGALLY on the pavement I will deliberately obstruct them and tell them to get in the road.
> As I said previously, learn to ride on the road, and stop trying to justify breaking the law.


----------



## Dan B (30 Mar 2011)

So it's OK to commit illegal acts when you're a child? Wish someone had told me that when _I_ was 8


----------



## adds21 (30 Mar 2011)

Some of the above posts go to show that things aren't always black or white. They also show some people in this thread need a common sense implant.


----------



## biglad (30 Mar 2011)

And that some are just downright aggressive.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> Stand my ground as a pedestrian on a footpath and maintain they get in the road. Cycling on the pavement is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Highway Code rule #64: You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
> 
> It couldn't be simpler, or clearer.


Yeah, course you do... as long as they're smaller than you, or more frail looking, or female etc. etc.  

No-one (I don't think) is disputing that it is ILLEGAL... but none the less, there is a directive for Police use which allows it as long as it is done in a considerate manner and is not endangering pedestrians... whether you agree with the principle behind this is another matter though.


----------



## ManiaMuse (30 Mar 2011)

My 9 month old superthread just refuses to die...maybe it will give birth to another superthread.

My guess is either

1) Helmet use

2) RLJers


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (30 Mar 2011)

I’ve written the following to try and explain why I think that all pavement riding is wrong. I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts. It could undoubtedly be improved, but I’m afraid I haven’t the time. And I apologise for its ridiculous length. My thanks to Brokenbetty, Clandy, Peter B (6/15/03 4:00 am on http://www.cyclingfo...avement-cycling) and a couple of others for useful contributory thinking.

I think the introduction of cyclists onto the pavement is changing the definition of what a pavement is. The pavement is currently a complicated social setting, with all kinds of rules about the consideration that pedestrians show each other. There's an unspoken, but quite sophisticated, contract between pedestrians that should guarantee equal dignity and equal safety to everyone. Of course, this doesn't always work properly, but it works pretty well.

As a result a pavement is somewhere where pedestrians can wander around. If we want to move sideways, in and out of shops, or to look in a shop window, or to talk to a friend, or to post a letter, or to cross the road, we can. A cursory glance is enough, because everyone else is moving at walking speed. If we do bump into someone, it will be a soft collision, the likelihood of injury very small and equally shared. A proper apology can be given and accepted, and no harm done, physical or psychological.

Bicycles change all this.

Firstly, they are heavy, obtrusive, awkwardly-shaped, metal objects, quite unlike people, and even at low speeds a collision with one can hurt. Any faster, it may knock you over. But it is less likely to hurt the cyclist, whose body is not being struck with anything and who has a metal frame to brace himself against. This changes the whole dynamic.

Secondly, at 10 mph (which is normal) it is very difficult to have any interaction with a cyclist, as you would with another pedestrian. So is there is not the same scope for "after you" or "thanks", or any of the myriad unspoken gestures and acknowledgments that make negotiating this common space mutually easier. This means that pedestrians become merely obstacles to be avoided, which is not how we see each other. This coarsens the human interaction taking place.

Thirdly, cyclists cannot step sideways. When there is a close call, we have to get out of their way.

Lastly, many cyclists have a combination of naivety and selfishness, and believe that "their skill" is such that they will always avoid an accident. But the unpredictable nature of the social space they are entering means that skill is not enough.

So the social rules that create equality and safety between pedestrians don't work between pedestrians and cyclists. The power dynamic is on the cyclists' side.

There are exceptions to the contract whereby pedestrians agree not to inconvenience or endanger each other. When a mother pushes her child in a buggy, we keep out of her way. Same for wheelchairs, motorised or otherwise, people carrying heavy luggage, small children riding bicycles, adults pushing bicycles etc. These people all have good reasons for making us walk round them, or for placing us at some small degree of risk. So we don't mind.

A cyclist breaks our contract when he comes onto the pavement because the size and awkwardness (wheels, handlebars) of his machine mean that he is a nuisance. So what he does is to dismount and turn himself into a pedestrian. He thereby becomes less of a nuisance and shows that he respects our space and our contract. In this way he becomes a valid exception. Not to dismount is therefore bad manners. And any adult who thinks that manners don’t matter is still a child.

If he is riding faster than walking speed, as they usually do, he is risking the safety of any pedestrian who doesn't see him in time and gets in his way. Remember, our rules say that we can pretty much wander about as we like. Simply by riding at this speed he is making a statement that he is prepared to risk startling, upsetting and bruising us. If he is riding at the speed in the video below, the pedestrian’s injuries will be more serious because they are likely to be knocked over. If he is flat out to cut out the lights, the pedestrian could be killed. But even if no-one is hit, even if there isn’t a near-miss, just by riding like this the cyclist is saying that he is prepared to risk our safety for his convenience.

In short, the cyclists are ignoring our contract. But if people ignore a contract, the contract no longer works. And this is what is happening here. Now, in order to to be safe, we have to radically change our rules for our social space. Mainly, we have to look behind us every single time we want to change direction, even if we are walking fast, because a bicycle will be faster than us. Also we have to look much further in each direction when we move across the pavement for any reason. In other words, we must start to behave like road users ourselves, always watching out for vehicles.

So what has happened is that the road has actually been extended onto the pavement. This change is entirely to pedestrians' detriment, converting our polite, quiet space into a traffic corridor. And it has been imposed on us by a group of people without valid reason, unlike the genuine exceptions.

If you look at this video from Tokyo (http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2hqFkHkqHdg) you will see all of this. The cyclists are passing very close to the pedestrians, on both sides, at 10-12 mph, easily fast enough to knock them over if they collide. They don't collide only because the pedestrians keep a dead straight line, knowing that cyclists will be coming up from behind them at a speed that will hurt them if they are hit. This is not normal pavement behaviour. It is the behaviour of a road-user, sticking to his lane. Nor is there any interaction between cyclist and pedestrian. There is no time.

That pavement is now a risky place that people are relieved to have negotiated safely. Instead of being a social space, it is an alienated environment to be endured, like being on a very crowded train. All this is a net loss to pedestrians. And what has happened in Tokyo is what is now happening here. And for no good reason.

Why would we not mind?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Mar 2011)

+1. A perfect argument and I think one that only a fanatical pavement cyclist would find fault with.



OldFashionedCyclist said:


> I’ve written the following to try and explain why I think that all pavement riding is wrong. I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts. It could undoubtedly be improved, but I’m afraid I haven’t the time. And I apologise for its ridiculous length. My thanks to Brokenbetty, Clandy, Peter B (6/15/03 4:00 am on http://www.cyclingfo...avement-cycling) and a couple of others for useful contributory thinking.
> 
> I think the introduction of cyclists onto the pavement is changing the definition of what a pavement is. The pavement is currently a complicated social setting, with all kinds of rules about the consideration that pedestrians show each other. There's an unspoken, but quite sophisticated, contract between pedestrians that should guarantee equal dignity and equal safety to everyone. Of course, this doesn't always work properly, but it works pretty well.
> 
> ...


----------



## adds21 (30 Mar 2011)

I agree with almost everything you wrote. However, your first paragraph is interesting:



OldFashionedCyclist said:


> I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts.



So where do we draw the line? Obviously cycling down the pavement on Oxford Street on a Saturday morning is unacceptable, but what about here, or here?.

This is exactly why the Police use their discretion, and why, to my mind at least, it's not as black and white as "thou must not cycle on the pavement".


----------



## Jezston (30 Mar 2011)

I think that's a much fairer and compelling argument than all your previous agressive and insulting comments up until now, OFC. So I respect you for that.

Thing is, we ALL draw a line _somewhere_ - even you allow little kids on tricycles on the pavement so there is no black and white. The police and home office have decided to draw the line at anyone riding inconsiderately on the pavement, and I understand that, even though I think it's a bit sad when you see guys in all the gear riding on pavement when there's perfectly useable road right next to them, even if they are barely moving above 'jogging' pace.

Which reminds me. How do you feel about people running on the pavement? Either joggers going for a run, or someone sprinting to catch a bus? How do you measure danger from them against someone tootling on a bicycle? 

What are your thoughts on 'shared use' pavement / cycle paths? Does that not conflict with your argument?

Either way, it doesn't matter what those of us who think considerate pavement cycling, whilst perhaps sad, isn't the end of the world - the police and home office have decided it's ok - so you'd be better off writing to your MP than arguing with us. You may notice few, if any, of the people on this thread taking an opposing view to yourself actually ride on pavements themselves.


----------



## Norm (30 Mar 2011)

Firstly, I agree with most all of OFC's post, so when I counter a few specific details, that doesn't detract from what I see as a good summary of the unwritten contract which is broken by cycling on the pavement.


OldFashionedCyclist said:


> *Secondly, at 10 mph (which is normal) *it is very difficult to have any interaction with a cyclist, as you would with another pedestrian.
> <<snipped>>
> A cyclist breaks our contract when he comes onto the pavement because the size and awkwardness (wheels, handlebars) of his machine mean that he is a nuisance. *So what he does is to dismount and turn himself into a pedestrian. He thereby becomes less of a nuisance* and shows that he respects our space and our contract. In this way he becomes a valid exception. Not to dismount is therefore bad manners. And any adult who thinks that manners don’t matter is still a child.
> 
> *If he is riding faster than walking speed, as they usually do, *he is risking the safety of any pedestrian who doesn't see him in time and gets in his way.


I don't agree with the first and third bits that I've enboldened. Even when cycling legally (on shared use paths or bridleways), I slow down to around walking speed until I've cleared any pedestrians. Everyone I've ridden with does the same, I don't see those riding at higher speeds as being "normal" or "usual". 

That could, of course, just be a reflection of the places that I ride (Windsor Great Park, Thames Path etc), and it's nothing more than personal experience which may, of course, differ for others.

On the second bit, I am wider and less manoeuvrable when walking than riding, so I see myself as more of a nuisance. This is why I stay on the bike when there are peds around.



Jezston said:


> What are your thoughts on 'shared use' pavement / cycle paths? Does that not conflict with your argument?


 See my thoughts on that issue above. I cede priority to pedestrians whenever sharing their space.

However, I think that OFC's opening paragraph may answer your question as, again in my experience, shared use paths are in rural or quiet locations rather than in areas of high volume traffic.


----------



## Jezston (30 Mar 2011)

Norm said:


> However, I think that OFC's opening paragraph may answer your question as, again in my experience, shared use paths are in rural or quiet locations rather than in areas of high volume traffic.



Actually, there's a great deal of shared use pavement on my commute between Nottingham & Derby - much of it in urban areas - and some of it unmarked or unsignposted - found out a lot of shared use facilities by looking at local council cycling maps. Then you have the on-pavement marked cycle paths which there is nothing to stop pedestrians walking in. Is it acceptable to charge down them as you would on road if, legally speaking, you are allowed to?

Again, far too many shades of grey here to say a blanket NO or YES to riding on pavements - hence the legal standpoint of "lets just say NO but advise against prosecuting unless they are being a menace as it would get too legally complicated to break down in solid legal terms all the situations where it may be ok to ride on the pavement".


----------



## Dan B (30 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> I’ve written the following to try and explain why I think that all pavement riding is wrong. I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts.




And deserted pavements in industrial estates or alongside roads like the Egham Bypass?

In that context, I agree with most if not all of it and would not massively change my opinions were the pavement legally a "shared use" path. It has everything to do with social expectations and diddle-all to do with "The Law" except insofar as the law helps frame and reflects social expectations.


----------



## Clandy (30 Mar 2011)

Norm said:


> However, I think that OFC's opening paragraph may answer your question as, again in my experience, shared use paths are in rural or quiet locations rather than in areas of high volume traffic.



Southend Council, in their 'wisdom', are currently installing a shared use path on the busiest part of the seafront. I will be remaining in the road along the seafront.


----------



## theclaud (30 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> I’ve written the following to try and explain why I think that all pavement riding is wrong. I’m referring to real pavements, not rural paths where the only pedestrians are goat-herds and escaped convicts. It could undoubtedly be improved, but I’m afraid I haven’t the time. And I apologise for its ridiculous length. My thanks to Brokenbetty, Clandy, Peter B (6/15/03 4:00 am on http://www.cyclingfo...avement-cycling) and a couple of others for useful contributory thinking.
> 
> I think the introduction of cyclists onto the pavement is changing the definition of what a pavement is. The pavement is currently a complicated social setting, with all kinds of rules about the consideration that pedestrians show each other. There's an unspoken, but quite sophisticated, contract between pedestrians that should guarantee equal dignity and equal safety to everyone. Of course, this doesn't always work properly, but it works pretty well.
> 
> ...



It must be one of those old-fashioned bicycles he's on about.

Seriously, OFC - no one begins a forum post with formal Acknowledgements. There's much to agree with in what you say, but if you're going to start troubling us with essays they'll need to be a bit more rigorous. Where do teenagers on bmxs and jump bikes fit in? Why do the same people ride differently on road bikes than on mtbs? Is vehicular cycling something that arises from the nature of bicycles or is it a political imperative, a statement of equality necessitated by the dominance of motor vehicles? To what extent is the concept of the pavement or sidewalk in itself already a capitulation to that dominance? Anyway, it's been a very entertaining thread, with you and Clandy wildly underestimating your opponent at every turn.


----------



## coco69 (30 Mar 2011)

ManiaMuse said:


> Was just walking down a narrow pavement on the LHS of the road and came across two adult cyclists cycling in the opposite direction towards me. The council has even been as nice to provide a cycle lane on the road (albeit in the opposite direction). I tell them 'get off the pavement' to which I get the response 'f**k off'.
> 
> Charming.



Did you ask them why,it could of been a simple thing such as many cyclists i know do not trust the roads and feel more safe on the pavement( which is the important thing),1st time on a bike etc....to many do gooders and to be honest with you if someone told me to ' get off the pavement' without asking why i would of reacted the same!


----------



## theclaud (30 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101611"]
I've gone off you TC. I can spend days and several essays trying to write what others (grrrrrr) can manage in a couple of sentences. Maybe I should have seen my reading weeks as just that, rather than school holidays.
[/quote]

Heh heh. Just raising a question or two - there's a lot of black-and-white thinking when it comes to this (and to disobeying red lights). I'm something of a fan of your inexhaustibly patient style of argument, though I used to find it a bit chilling when you used it on poor old Linfy...


----------



## Bicycle (30 Mar 2011)

This thread is in some ways not unlike a very, very brutal boxing match. 

Much as I dread at times the way it's going, I find myself compelled to stay and watch.

I know little of traffic law, but I'm pretty sure that some people will see things one way and some will see them another.

One or two of the responses are slightly reminiscent of the 'Mr Angry' driver shaking a fist and shouting unheard road-use advice to the innocent cyclist or motorcyclist.... The driver, insulated from human contact by doors & windows, can say whatever he or she wants. The same protection is offered by a Web forum - and sometimes the same type of outburst may result. 

The edge enjoyed by the web forum is that the road-rage sufferer has only seconds to respond. The chatroom contributor can spend hours seething about some imagined slight and drafting the perfect reply.

Please keep the entertainment coming... but please don't let it get too enjoyable for the spectator.

Surely we are getting close to Round Twelve...

...of twelve.


----------



## Dan B (30 Mar 2011)

And to what extent is "vehicular cycling" a bone thrown to people who assume that vehicles are the only things that should be allowed on roads, in the hope that by placating them and acting more like motor cars (e.g. paying so-called road tax or eschewing filtering, two-abreast riding, the use of cycle facilities and other advantages of the bike over the car) they will better tolerate us?


(1) A bicycle _is_ in law a vehicle, and there should be no need to pretend to be a motor vehicle in order that drivers of motor vehicles take us seriously

(2) The mounted equestrian is, to the best of my knowledge, not a vehicle at all, and does not have to pretend to be one, yet the majority of motorists would (sometimes reluctantly) admit their right to use the road.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there.


----------



## theclaud (30 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> And to what extent is "vehicular cycling" a bone thrown to people who assume that vehicles are the only things that should be allowed on roads, in the hope that by placating them and acting more like motor cars (e.g. paying so-called road tax or eschewing filtering, two-abreast riding, the use of cycle facilities and other advantages of the bike over the car) they will better tolerate us?
> 
> 
> (1) A bicycle _is_ in law a vehicle, and there should be no need to pretend to be a motor vehicle in order that drivers of motor vehicles take us seriously
> ...



I don't think it's a tangent, Dan - I think it gets to the crux of the matter. We are not talking about fixed categories, but of modes (both of transport and of, well... being). Mr Paul is opening the door to all sorts of interesting insights into the Ontology of the Cyclist.


----------



## summerdays (30 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> Now, in order to to be safe, we have to radically change our rules for our social space. Mainly, we have to look behind us every single time we want to change direction, even if we are walking fast, because a bicycle will be faster than us. Also we have to look much further in each direction when we move across the pavement for any reason. In other words, we must start to behave like road users ourselves, always watching out for vehicles.
> 
> So what has happened is that the road has actually been extended onto the pavement. This change is entirely to pedestrians' detriment, converting our polite, quiet space into a traffic corridor. And it has been imposed on us by a group of people without valid reason, unlike the genuine exceptions.



I was with my bike on the pavement last week ... (walking with my friend on the way back from the school drop off) and I was almost hit by a car reversing blindly out of a driveway ... given the time of day very dangerous as there were still children on their way to school. My bike wheel was 6 inches from the car rear wing. We do need to look all around us, there are numerous occasions when you need to move quickly out of a car's way on the pavement.

I see many pavement cyclists (not least children and teenagers making their way to a skate park on their BMX's ... actually saw some walking on the path a few weeks ago), but only a few annoy me. I think those are the ones that the police should crack down on. We have many laws that are applied inconsistently or not at all - such as parking on the pavement which has resulted in me having to walk in the road to get past. Until recently I was having very little success at getting the police/council to deal with these. I do agree that the rules should be applied consistently but they aren't, and nobody has ever clarified at exactly what age it is not acceptable (note the word acceptable not illegal) to cycle on the pavement just quoting the FPN age as a suggested limit.

If you feel very strongly about this issue why not attend your local neighbourhood forum and raise it as something you would like to be prioritised by the police. There are some districts in Bristol where this has been raised as an issue such as Redland - so there are signs up around the Gloucester Road reminding cyclists not to cycle on the pavement or risk a fine. I felt strongly about the parked cars so I have gone to the meetings with other like minded residents and raised it as an issue and it is now getting a higher priority in this area - I have seen numberous cars with parking fines and some have been towed away - in fact I was chatting to the local policeman who was also on his bike ... both of us on the road, only yesterday. YOU can be active about getting it changed.


----------



## gannet (30 Mar 2011)

Can't claim to have read all the posts in this long thread...

When I was growing up (80's) there were very few cyclists using the pavements, but there was also very few 'cycle' lanes be they the pitiful along the side of the road variety or the shared footpaths.

The proliferation of the shared cycle path seems to encourage cyclists to use paths rather than the road especially when they are so poorly signed.

As for whether some cyclists use them because of a lack of confidence on the road, don't know, but they won't get the confidence if they don't try or don't do any training (does cycling proficiency still run?).

Do I use pavements or even shared paths? no never - unless you count riding over the pavement outside my house to get onto my drive.

On the south circular late last year there were some roadworks which lasted a few months which closed the road in one direction. They had quite well signposted 'cyclist diversion' signs to take us round the closure. I observed these on the first day only to find them spitting me out about 50-75 metres BEFORE the end of the roadworks - what were we supposed to do... cycle the wrong way down the road or on the pavement. I dismounted till I could cross etc. The next day I found a different route. Interestingly the police were actually stopping cyclists who ignored the diversion and mounted the pavement. What they received I wouldn't know.

I was always taught bikes are vehicles and shouldn't be on the pavement which are for pedestrians UNLESS they only have one brake - does this still apply I wonder?

just my 2p worth


----------



## adds21 (30 Mar 2011)

gannet said:


> I was always taught bikes are vehicles and shouldn't be on the pavement which are for pedestrians UNLESS they only have one brake - does this still apply I wonder?



Never heard that before. Many fixies only have one brake.


----------



## summerdays (30 Mar 2011)

gannet said:


> Can't claim to have read all the posts in this long thread...
> 
> When I was growing up (80's) there were very few cyclists using the pavements, but there was also very few 'cycle' lanes be they the pitiful along the side of the road variety or the shared footpaths.
> 
> ...



Cycling proficiency does still exist under a new name and is certainly better than the training that I recieved where we never left the playground! (late 1970's). I guess if quite a few of my generation received similar training then it doesn't really leave us set up adequately to cycle on the roads that are much busier. Then that generation become parents and are scared to let their children on the roads to play let alone cycle. I think that has caused some of the increase in pavement cyclists. The fact that I made the change from pavement to road always gives me hope that others will too.

I don't think there is a law about 1 brake is allowed on the pavement ... but if so it might explain why so many BMX'ers have either one or 0 brakes!!! (Somehow I think it is just trendy  )


----------



## summerdays (30 Mar 2011)

adds21 said:


> Never heard that before. Many fixies only have one brake.



But AFAIK the legs count as one of the two brakes?.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (30 Mar 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> +1. A perfect argument


Cheers, mate!



Angelfishsolo said:


> and I think one that only a fanatical pavement cyclist would find fault with.


Well, indeed. As has been monotonously demonstrated on this thread.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (30 Mar 2011)

ManiaMuse said:


> My 9 month old superthread just refuses to die...maybe it will give birth to another superthread.
> 
> My guess is either
> 
> ...



How about licensing?

Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.


----------



## mangaman (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots.
> 
> ...


----------



## Clandy (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.



Licensing won't happen. It has been an expensive failure everywhere it has been tried. Where do you start? The toddler on their pushalong? The five year old on their Tomy? The eight year old on their BMX? Then there are practicalities, where do you put a license plate on a Brompton, a Moulton, a Bike Friday? Or any bike with a saddle bag and panniers? How do you enforce it, and who pays to enforce it?


----------



## theclaud (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because* so many of you are such arrogant idiots*. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.



Typed, I suspect, without conscious irony...


----------



## Mark_Robson (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.


Thanks for making me chuckle. It's nice to have a little humour before I leave for work.


----------



## adds21 (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.



:troll:


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (31 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101630"]
By all means, if it's something you feel so strongly about and you think as you do that you'll get sufficient backing, please start a campaign.
[/quote]

Nope. Unlike you, I'm not a fanatic. I'm just saying that if you stand back from the thing it is obvious that the deterioration in cyclists' behaviour, and the number of people it annoys, is bound to lead to licensing. They do it in Santa Monica, I see, and people are talking about it all over the place. People have had enough, and so it's just a matter of time. The only thing that would stop it would be if cyclists grow up, and we all know that it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Mar 2011)

Unless it is a fixie!
[QUOTE 1101622"]
It's a legal requirement for bikes to have two working brakes.
[/quote]


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> Nope. Unlike you, I'm not a fanatic.


I see two sides to this argument: one side is saying "If it doesn't cause anyone any harm then what's the problem?", and the other is using words like "furious", "pissed off", "fantasy world" and "arrogant idiots"


I can't say I find it hard to decide which comes off as more fanatical


----------



## adds21 (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> They do it in Santa Monica, I see,



FYI, they don't do it in Santa Monica anymore.


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> They do it in Santa Monica, I see


As an anti-theft measure, for residents bikes only, and it costs $3 and requires no test of riding ability. Not really all that relevant to your point


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (31 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> I see two sides to this argument: one side is saying "If it doesn't cause anyone any harm then what's the problem?", and the other is using words like "furious", "pissed off", "fantasy world" and "arrogant idiots"
> 
> 
> I can't say I find it hard to decide which comes off as more fanatical



It's never for the aggressor to decide whether or not there 's a problem. Indeed, the irony of your post is wonderful. I assume you've had the experience of having to swerve or brake to avoid some cretinous car driver, only to remonstrate with them at the next set of lights and have them look at you blankly, unable to see what the fuss is all about? Did their initial behaviour make you furious, or pissed off? And how about their fatuous incomprehension? That's what you're doing to us. It's kind of obvious!

One side here is just pretending there's no problem, ignoring all the evidence, no matter how clearly and rationally it is presented (see earlier long piece by myself), and the other side is justifiably annoyed.

In the big picture cyclists have got fed up with crap car-drivers and have retreated to the pavements, and are now visiting exactly the same crap on us. I must say, I find it amazing that so many cyclists seem genuinely to be unable to see that.

The point about Santa Monica is simply that it's do-able. There are probably dozens of ways of doing it once people start thinking about it seriously, which is what is starting to happen. All that is necessary is sufficient public anger and concern, and that is what the red-light dickheads and the grannyspinners are generating.

FYI, your use of an extra-large font comes across as a bit mad.


----------



## ManiaMuse (31 Mar 2011)

My thread just refuses to die.


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2011)

Sorry, the font size change was not intentional. My web browser seems to randomly change font size whenever I edit text and i don't always spot it before I press 'Submit'. "A bit mad" pretty much covers it.



> It's never for the aggressor to decide whether or not there 's a problem. Indeed, the irony of your post is wonderful. I assume you've had the experience of having to swerve or brake to avoid some cretinous car driver, only to remonstrate with them at the next set of lights and have them look at you blankly, unable to see what the fuss is all about?


Yes, indeed I have. I have also - many many more times - had the experience of a non-cretinous car driver performing a safe overtake, or holding back from overtaking, or just generally sharing the carriageway with me in a non-aggressive non-infuriating manner. As I'm sure you have too. Given that only a _very_ small subset of car drivers are cretinously oblivious to the intimidation and worry they cause other road users, isn't it perhaps plausible that the same applies to cyclists sharing the pavement? Most if not all of us are at some time pedestrians as well as cyclists, why should it be axiomatic that when we are astride bicycles we become "aggressors"? The added mass and sharp bits are surely a factor, but the considerate pavement cyclist mitigates that risk by e.g. slowing to near-walking pace and leaving lots of room when approaching pedestrians - just as a considerate motorist mitigates the risk of his added mass/sharp bits in carriageway interactions with cyclists. Why is it, in short, one set of assumptions for car drivers interacting with cyclists, and another set completely for cyclists interacting with pedestrians? Clearly the powers that be recognise that not every cyclist on a footpath is behaving aggressively or they would not have introduced shared-use paths, so on what basis are you apparently claiming they're flat-out wrong to do so?


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (31 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Clearly the powers that be recognise that not every cyclist on a footpath is behaving aggressively or they would not have introduced shared-use paths, so on what basis are you apparently claiming they're flat-out wrong to do so?



Nothing wrong with this sort: http://www.bicycling...ering/paths.cfm


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (31 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101637"]
You are either ignoring everything that's been said on this thread, or just don't understand it. 

Either way, what will be will be, and your groundless ranting predictions won't change anything. You clearly feel very strongly about the issue, but aren't prepared to do anything about it. 
People will continue to ride considerately on the pavement in the circumstances described, the authorities will continue to take a sensible and tolerant approach and cycling will continue to grow. And that's great.
[/quote]

The problem is that your definition of "considerately" includes that Tokyo pavement, where if any of those pedestrians being overtaken were to step to one side at the wrong moment they would be knocked over. If you cannot see that that seriously diminishes that social space for pedestrians, then I don't know what goes through your head. A beam of light, probably.

I wrote a long piece explaining all of this in detail, but, as usual, you either ignored it or didn't understand it.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Mar 2011)

Ciandy - if you're still with this, can I ask you a question. What do you think of the new arrangement on the Western Esplanade?


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> The problem is that your definition of "considerately" includes that Tokyo pavement


I find that unlikely, as I haven't at any time mentioned "that Tokyo pavement", nor have I even viewed the video you're talking about. And to forestall your next question I have not been to Tokyo either. 

I did read your long post. If you look back in the thread you will see that I posted a reply in which I agreed with much of it. To start making claims that _I_ am ignoring what others have written is, on this evidence, a pretty poor showing.


----------



## mickle (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> How about licensing?
> 
> Let me tell you something. I cycled for years. I loved it. I loved everything about it. The whole ethos. All of it. I still do, when it’s done properly. About five years ago a friend of mine said he thought cyclists should be licensed. Taxed, tested, everything. I was dead against. Now I’m entirely for, and have been for some time. Why? Because so many of you are such arrogant idiots. I have talked to several friends over the last couple of days about pavement cyclists. All of them (get that? ALL of them) are furious about it. I was surprised. I'd thought it would be a spectrum of views. The most normally mild-mannered of them said we should get a group together and walk up and down a cycle lane in central London and see how they like it. Actions have reactions. If cyclists don’t grow up and stop pissing people off, more and more people will call for licensing. Livingstone called for it in 2006. Ahead of his time. Reassure yourselves with whatever fantasies you want, but I’m telling you, if someone like me is now in favour of licensing, you have a problem.




You need to calm the **** down before you pop a blood vessel. And please leave off the personal abuse, it's not considered good form.


----------



## summerdays (31 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101637"]
You clearly feel very strongly about the issue, but aren't prepared to do anything about it. 
People will continue to ride considerately on the pavement in the circumstances described, the authorities will continue to take a sensible and tolerant approach and cycling will continue to grow. And that's great.
[/quote]

+1

You seem to have ignored my posts which suggest that if you feel strongly about it that *YOU DO* something about it ... you have the power to change policing priorities locally (I'm assuming that neighbourhood forums are national?). If it annoys you so much then go and complain with those friends of yours and get the places where it is worst, targeted.


----------



## BrumJim (31 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1101651"]
One thing the Chief Inspector said in her email to me earlier in the week was that if there are complaints that in a specific area there are problems with pavement cycling then they would go out and address it, so summerdays is right, one person can make a difference.

I've just walked up New St. Pedestrianised area, thousands of people milling around during their lunch break. In and out of shops, stopping to talk, chuggers prowling and pounching. And a handful of pavement cyclists. It was carnage. Real carnage*.






*The above is a lie. Everyone was just going about their business, and letting everyone else go about theirs. It's a marvellous thing to observe.
[/quote]

But being Birmingham, most people were moaning about it......


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (31 Mar 2011)

BrumJim said:


> But being Birmingham, most people were moaning about it......


 <kidz speak> True, dat. </kidz speak>


----------



## summerdays (31 Mar 2011)

I wonder how much this varies around the country - so that in areas of high cycle usage is it more or less tolerated? or whether that doesn't affect it at all. 

There are a few areas locally where there are shared spaces (rather than paths) and so the cyclists and pedestrians can be travelling in a number of different directions ... I like the atmosphere where the two modes mingle, speeds are low in general (there are some idiots as there are in every form of transportation) as everyone is unpredictable.


----------



## OldFashionedCyclist (31 Mar 2011)

ManiaMuse said:


> My thread just refuses to die.



Indeed, but I think it's time it did. I really thought that post 280 would generate thoughtful discussion. But no. What a kindergarten.


----------



## mickle (31 Mar 2011)

OldFashionedCyclist said:


> Indeed, but I think it's time it did. I really thought that post 280 would generate thoughtful discussion. But no. What a kindergarten.



You are a troll. I claim my £5.


----------



## Clandy (31 Mar 2011)




----------



## ManiaMuse (31 Mar 2011)

It's the 9 month old thread that just keeps on giving.


----------



## Bicycle (31 Mar 2011)

I think...

(delay while he tosses a coin)

... that anyone who cycles on the pavement is a bad, bad, naughty person.

I base this on anecdotal evidence - all of it written and published - and on having once worked with someone who later joined the Police.

I think my views on this topic are fairly moderate, although of course anyone who disagrees with me (even a little bit) is utterly wrong.

It is quite clear from entirely anecdotal evidence (and from a thing I hear a bloke say at a bus stop) that the road is the place to ride a bicycle.

I often park my car with two or more wheels on the pavement - and the thought of some young lout on a bicycle bumping into it just makes my blood boil. 

As far as I recall, cyclists pay no Vehicle Excise - so they have no moral case for using the pavement, the kerb or pedestrian underpasses (other than the time I cycled along the Greenwich Foot Tunnel, but that was OK because I was in a hurry).

I once read a book - and am therefore right. I rest my case.


----------



## summerdays (31 Mar 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think...
> 
> (delay while he tosses a coin)
> 
> ...



 I didn't realise that VED meant you could park on the pavement... and I guess the policemen around here don't know either since they had slapped on multiple fines to cars parked on the pavements. So I guess any car parked on the pavement shouldn't get bumped by a bicycle but it is totally fine if the bike is ridden by a child or its a buggy pushed by a mum or a wheelchair?  Cars on pavements are far worse than bikes  .


----------



## Cyclopathic (31 Mar 2011)

I'm just off out on me bike to ride at absolutely full tilt along the pavement, past the school and the retirement home, blidfolded and no handed and wielding a huge wiffle bat. So watch out.


----------



## lcjohnny (31 Mar 2011)

> I think...
> 
> (delay while he tosses a coin)
> 
> ...



Truesay But I still see a lot of cyclists in Bristol racing along the pavement in the same arrogant top-dog way that SUV drivers use against the rest of us and i still see them both as the same yobbish problem

jon


----------



## Jezston (1 Apr 2011)

mickle said:


> You are a troll. I claim my £5.



Hey I got in there first. That fivers mine!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (1 Apr 2011)

I was a pavement cyclist this morning. A lorry overtook me near some parked cars on the other side of the road and then had to start cutting in as cars came in the opposite direction, it was when I realised he had a trailer too and was still cutting in there wasn't going to be enough width of road for all of us. Fortunately there was a drop in the kerb and I was able to bail out onto the pavement. Bastard!


----------



## John the Monkey (1 Apr 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think...
> 
> (delay while he tosses a coin)
> 
> ...



Heh


----------



## summerdays (1 Apr 2011)

Whilst I saw a car parked up on the pavement and a man in a wheel chair in primary position in the middle of the road as a result. I don't remember seeing any pavement cyclists (apart from me on my cut through where I got off as there was a pedestrian), other than one primary school child, without an adult, on the way to school.


----------



## jonesy (4 Apr 2011)

I had another moan at me this morning for not riding on the pavement (a place motorists assume is a cycle path because there's a shared use path further along the same road), this happens once a month or so, but annoyingly this time it was from a colleague who cycles... took some arguing to get across the point that no it really is just a pavement and you shouldn't cycle there! I'm convinced that part of the increase in pavement cycling is because there has been so much use of crappy shared use pavements, both by encouraging cyclists to go onto the footway and by giving drivers the idea that cycling doesn't belong on the road. Quite a lot of my colleagues who cycle use the aforementioned pavement simply because they get so much hassle from drivers when they stay on the road. Which is understandable, but very depressing.


----------



## Jezston (4 Apr 2011)

jonesy said:


> I had another moan at me this morning for not riding on the pavement (a place motorists assume is a cycle path because there's a shared use path further along the same road), this happens once a month or so, but annoyingly this time it was from a colleague who cycles... took some arguing to get across the point that no it really is just a pavement and you shouldn't cycle there! I'm convinced that part of the increase in pavement cycling is because there has been so much use of crappy shared use pavements, both by encouraging cyclists to go onto the footway and by giving drivers the idea that cycling doesn't belong on the road. Quite a lot of my colleagues who cycle use the aforementioned pavement simply because they get so much hassle from drivers when they stay on the road. Which is understandable, but very depressing.



About a year ago I started a thread (don't fancy depressing myself by digging it up!) where I was engaged in a discussion with colleagues advising me to ride on the pavement, the most vocal dissing of me for riding on the road coming from another cycle commuter!

Having said that, this particular individual did apologise afterwards. Also he rides some weird mountain bike that has a single granny chainring, so I'd imagine he can't get any kind of decent speed up anyway!


----------



## Mark_Robson (6 Apr 2011)

I remember reading that the they don't run the booster fans in the Tyne Tunnel until the level of carbon monoxide in the tunnel hit 100ppm


----------



## Black Sheep (7 Apr 2011)

Mark_Robson said:


> Are you a Policeman?
> Were they cycling in a sensible manner and giving way to pedestrians or were they a danger to everyone around them?



is it illegal to ride on a pavement? 
yes.

so why excuse the behavior?

allowances for a young family, yes, 




mangaman said:


> Hello - nice post.
> 
> I always think a post with Bollocks as the opening word is going to be a pleasure to read
> 
> ...






if you aren't confident on the road, pick quieter routes. 

there are some routes around the coventry that I avoid if my wife is with me on a ride, steep up hills on busy roads or the ringroad roundabouts (we take to the subways which do have cycle lanes) when I'm alone, i'll cover the brakes and gun it quite happily because I know what gap I can get through (always across the path of a vehicle, i'll wait for a proper gap to join a lane) 

confidence has improved as time has passed.


----------



## 1894mk2 (8 Apr 2011)

I do 58 miles a day at the moment and go through 2 cross roads that take about 5 minutes each to get a green and a couple of T junctions that take a bit less. Can be long queus and narrow with oncoming . I filter where I can and then generaly do the pavement slowly nearer the lights where cars are right against the kerb. Generaly say thank you to anyone I see - normaly about none in the morning and a few in the evening.

Apparently I'm being highly irresponsible? It already takes me 1hr 45 each way.......


----------



## Clandy (8 Apr 2011)

Pedestrians love pavement cyclists so much that some councils are now backtracking on shared use facilities by banning cycling for most of the day: http://www.cyclewoking.org.uk/aboutus/news?item=00004D933425.C0A801BA.00003F76.0008


----------



## Clandy (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1101675"]
What you mean is that one council has been reasonable and restricted cycling in one small area of their town centre, while reiterating that shared use is maintained outside of these busy times and 24/7 in other areas.

It's almost as if you are trying to suggest something else by your chosen wording.
[/quote]



You are the one who insists pedestrians have no problems with pavement cyclists. This story shows the untruth of that.


----------



## funnymummy (8 Apr 2011)

[QUOTE 1101351"]
I find a useful approach is to train a small child to very loudly say "Mum, look at that big boy riding on the pavement. Doesn't he know that pavements are for people? I ride on the road, and I'm only 8!"

Of course, this only works if you have a convenient, slightly cocky and relatively cute 8 year old... and will get him beaten up if he does it when he's much older. But that's OK, I have a spare 3 year old waiting to take the job on 
[/quote]

 My youngest son is 6, he rides on the road in front of me, however there is one small part of our commute that involves passing the entrance to the local Industrial Estate & for this part he does go along the pavemnet - the 'draft' caused by some lorries is enough to make me wobble, so I figured that for a 2-300 hundred yards he would be safer on the pavement, It isn't in a pedestriansed area so he very rarely encounters anyone walking towards him - But if he does, he knows to slow down & keep as far to his left as possible, give 2 quick rings on his bell..and say a cheery Thank You as he passes.
I may have trained him too well in cycling etiquette though, as he is very happy to point out in very loud voice his opinions on other POB's faults & riding skills!


----------

