# Cycling on the pavement



## Squaggles (26 Oct 2007)

I realise this is against the law but is it ever ok to ride on the pavement ? Would you do it for the sake of personal safety if a particular stretch of road or junction was too dangerous ?
The standard of driving in this country seems to have got steadily worse in the time I have been riding a bike and sometimes I just do not feel safe . The alternative would be to get the bus which I really don't want to do .


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

Yeah, it's _technically_ illegal but largely ok. As long as you go fairly slowly (< 15mph - although on a dedicated cycle path you can probably open her up a bit), and are careful of peds, and give way to them - that's the main thing.
IIRC Paul Boateng a government minister has recently clamped down on police trying to stop and fine people who ride on the pavement perfectly safely, imho good on him.


----------



## spandex (26 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Yeah, it's _technically_ illegal but largely ok. As long as you go fairly slowly (< 15mph - although on a dedicated cycle path you can probably open her up a bit), and are careful of peds, and give way to them - that's the main thing.
> IIRC Paul Boateng a government minister has recently clamped down on police trying to stop and fine people who ride on the pavement perfectly safely, imho good on him.



year its illegal but its ok??? WHAT!. as long as you go slow? 15mph is not slow its 4 and a bit times faster then someone walking so thats not slow. you can probably open her up a bit on a cycle path what is it bad now for going faster then 15mph on a cycle path in stead of a path?

bonj your not thinking right are you?


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

spandex said:


> year its illegal but its ok??? WHAT!. as long as you go slow? 15mph is not slow its 4 and a bit times faster then someone walking so thats not slow.




I think you'll find 15mph _is_ quite slow. It's all relative anyhow. 60mph in a car is 4 x faster than a cyclist going at 15mph. But it doesn't _necessarily_ mean it's unsafe to do that speed in a car as long if you slow down a bit when you see the cyclist and overtake them safely, give them a wide berth and don't startle them. Same with peds on a path. But anyhow, it matters not. I've said, that you should _be careful_ of peds and to _give way_ to them. That's the most important thing.


spandex said:


> you can probably open her up a bit on a cycle path what is it bad now for going faster then 15mph on a cycle path in stead of a path?


I don't understand this sentence. Use better grammar.


----------



## summerdays (26 Oct 2007)

I cycled on the pavement yesterday.... I was with my son - age 6, some of the journey we both were on the road, some just me on the road... but on the way back the pavement is only on one side of the busiest road, so I rode behind him at a fast snails pace. At least that way I can shout comments at him - like 'let the man go first' etc, and you can cross the side roads together. 
And I also rode on the pavement when I first returned to cycling 2 years ago, and gradually cycled on busier and busier roads. There is still the odd junction that I would walk but they are few and far between.



Squaggles said:


> Would you do it for the sake of personal safety if a particular stretch of road or junction was too dangerous ?
> The alternative would be to get the bus which I really don't want to do .


Have you looked to see if there are alternative routes avoiding the worst traffic? even if they are longer - they still could be faster if you don't have negotiate with all the traffic.


----------



## col (26 Oct 2007)

Iv told my son,when he cycles to school,if he feels unsafe to get on the pavement,but if anyone is there slow down or get off,whichever is better.I would also do it myself ,if i thought i needed to.


----------



## Blue (26 Oct 2007)

summerdays said:


> I cycled on the pavement yesterday.... I was with my son - age 6, some of the journey we both were on the road, some just me on the road... but on the way back the pavement is only on one side of the busiest road, so I rode behind him at a fast snails pace. At least that way I can shout comments at him - like 'let the man go first' etc, and you can cross the side roads together.




I did the same thing with my boy when he was that age.

I wouldn't as a rule ride on the path, but don't have a problem with it if safety suggests its use. I agree with the comment made by Bonji in relation to giving way to other users - as long as pavement using cyclists give way to me when I'm walking I don't object - it's the bu@@ers who try to mow you down that get on my goat.


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

Blue said:


> I did the same thing with my boy when he was that age.
> 
> I wouldn't as a rule ride on the path, but don't have a problem with it if safety suggests its use. I agree with the comment made by Bonji in relation to giving way to other users - as long as pavement using cyclists give way to me when I'm walking I don't object - it's the bu@@ers who try to mow you down *that get on my goat.*



is it legal to ride a goat on the pavement?


----------



## col (26 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> is it legal to ride a goat on the pavement?





No, its illegal to ride a goat anywhere


----------



## Elmer Fudd (26 Oct 2007)

spandex said:


> year its illegal but its ok??? WHAT!. as long as you go slow? 15mph is not slow its 4 and a bit times faster then someone walking so thats not slow.


I always thought natural walking speed for a reasonably fit person was 4mph ? Or is that just me ?


----------



## bonj2 (26 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I always thought natural walking speed for a reasonably fit person was 4mph ? Or is that just me ?



that's a fairly _brisk_ walk, but yes generally walking pace is considered to be 4mph.


----------



## Blue (26 Oct 2007)

col said:


> No, its illegal to ride a goat anywhere



Sh;t, I'm a criminal - I thought it was only Scotland that still had laws against my hobby - yes, I like horses too


----------



## spandex (26 Oct 2007)

Elmer Fudd said:


> I always thought natural walking speed for a reasonably fit person was 4mph ? Or is that just me ?




its round 3 to 4 mph some get upto 5  ive been told but lets say to help bonj fill better 3.75mph? ish ok! its still 4 times faster. its still fast ok not the same speed as me on the road but it is fast.


----------



## frog (26 Oct 2007)

Over the past week or so I've started to see a new cycle commuter. She started with just a bike, then added helmet, reflective jacket, and now lights. She always cycles on the pavement and is very considerate of the peds. I'm hoping that soon she'll want to try the road and get where she's going a bit quicker.

While it's illegal to ride on the pavement I wouldn't blame a novice for doing it. Equally so I wouldn't blame a novice for returning to the pavement after a scare. 

I hit a guy who attacked me a few years ago at around 15 mph. He was trying to push me off the bike into the overtaking line of traffic. With an all up weight of 16 stone he made no impression on my line of travel at all. All I got was two red patches on my shoulder where he pushed me. He, on the other hand went flying backwards into his open car door - with luck I probably broke both his wrists as well. You can do an awful lot of damage at 15 mph to some one who's actually prepared to receive the impact. You could probably increase that to someone who gets taken unawares by the contact.


----------



## frog (26 Oct 2007)

> No, its illegal to ride a goat anywhere



So why don't the crews in the Oxford and Cambridge Goat Race get arrested each year?


----------



## Joe24 (26 Oct 2007)

I'd rather get off my bike and walk or jog past the section.
It isnt slowing you down too much if you jog.
If i do cycle on the pavment, then it would be at walking speed, and if its at walking speed i might aswell get offand jog.
15mph is too high to be on the pavement and be riding.
Walking pace would be between 3-4 mph i think.


----------



## classic33 (26 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Yeah, it's _technically_ illegal but largely ok. As long as you go fairly slowly (< 15mph - although on a dedicated cycle path you can probably open her up a bit), and are careful of peds, and give way to them - that's the main thing.
> IIRC Paul Boateng a government minister has recently clamped down on police trying to stop and fine people who ride on the pavement perfectly safely, imho good on him.



*Bonj* 

http://www.rjw.co.uk/ctc/q-a-from-cycle-magazine/q-a-from-cycle-magazine/#pavement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naismith's_Rule

Even on a shared footpath, 18mph or faster, you are expected to get onto the road. Oddly enough for the safety of those on foot. 

_BTW you can't get points on your licence for robbing a bank! _


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (26 Oct 2007)

I'm obvioulsy a nuaghty boy then. I cycle on the pavement each morning I commute - it's a short cut which cuts out a rather nasty little roundabout (no-one seems capable of indicating because it's easier just to go round at speed and pick one of the 7 exits which are all quite close together) and saves about 1/4 mile of bad surfaced road too.

I turn off the main drag and up a cul-de-sac which ends with a pavement across the top. In total I cover about 25m of pavement and am then back into an ASL ready to make a right turn at a set of lights.

Whenever I go on this section I am at snail's pace, but I still ride rather than walk - seems pointless unclipping and pushing as there's rarely anyone there... and on the odd occasion there is someone there I let them know they have right of way and I'll happily wait.

Never been a problem for me or any ped there.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Oct 2007)

classic33 said:


> *Bonj*
> 
> http://www.rjw.co.uk/ctc/q-a-from-cycle-magazine/q-a-from-cycle-magazine/#pavement


You have to quote the pertinent points of the article you're linking to.
It's a long wall of prose, I haven't the inclination to read it all and guess why you're linking to it.



classic33 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naismith's_Rule


Why is being able to calculate the journey time for a hike relevant?



classic33 said:


> Even on a shared footpath, 18mph or faster, you are expected to get onto the road. Oddly enough for the safety of those on foot.


Surely it depends on _whether there are_ any on foot?


----------



## bonj2 (27 Oct 2007)

classic33 said:


> _BTW you can't get points on your licence for robbing a bank! _



you can if you're the getaway driver and you break the traffic laws.


----------



## Blue (27 Oct 2007)

The points would be for the traffic offence, not the robbery.

Sharpen up there Bonj.


----------



## spandex (27 Oct 2007)

thats it bonj is on one he is going to pick at all the little bits to try and get out of this and HE CANT  hehehehehe......








it had to be said.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Oct 2007)

I just don't think it's unsafe to ride on the pavement as long as you do it carefully, ensuring the safety of and giving way to peds, that's all - so I don't see why I shouldn't do it - fwiw I don't see simply the mere fact that it's against the law as a good enough reason not to do it. For me it's got to have a tangible negative effect on somebody or something. 
If you want to refrain from doing it simply because it's against the law then that's fine, I've nothing against that. Also if you want to recommend to others not to do it simply because it's against the law I've no problem with that either - feel free to speak your mind. But so will I, thanks. The forum doesn't have to come to a unanimous position to present to beginners, they'll make of different people's viewpoints what they will and come to their own decision - as long as no-one presents deliberately false facts.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Oct 2007)

Blue said:


> The points would be for the traffic offence, not the robbery.
> 
> Sharpen up there Bonj.



what's this about a robbery? i'm not sure why you've brought a bank robbery into it.


----------



## col (28 Oct 2007)

Whats happened,some posts have dissapeared??


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Oct 2007)

This is always a mixed bag, and difficult to answer.

It is not helped by the DfT who advise 18 mph as a top speed on a shared use path - in my opinion far too fast.

One of the problems is the speed difference rather than the speed itself. A cyclist passing a pedestrian at the advised 18 mph is equivalent to a cyclist being passed at 60 - 80 mph.

This means that for many there is a perception of danger rather than a real one, especially for the elderly and infirm who cannot react quickly or to parents with children who are feeling protective oftheir charges.

However to the individual this perception is totally real and needs to be addressed from this viewpoint.

The original stated aim of Sustrans and the National Cycle Network is that:



> By providing a network of safe high-quality routes that link towns and villages, the NCN aims to increase travel choices for both utility and leisure journeys. Any route signed and promoted as "final" NCN has to be suitable for a family with small children or an unaccompanied 12 year-old child.



Would that be the guiding line- both in an age guide and an aim for the road environment itself.

Until this standard is reached for all roads there will perhaps be an argument for pavement cycling in strict circumstances?

However this must be done through the proper process, and legislative steps


----------



## classic33 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> You have to quote the pertinent points of the article you're linking to.
> It's a long wall of prose, I haven't the inclination to read it all and guess why you're linking to it.
> 
> I had assumed you would have read the first part at least. It appears as follows:
> ...



No it doesn't. Above 18mph you are deemed to be a danger, whilst cycling on a footpath (_that runs alongside any road_).


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

classic33 said:


> No it doesn't. Above 18mph you are deemed to be a danger, whilst cycling on a footpath (_that runs alongside any road_).



Whether I'm a danger or not is a function of whether there's who I pose a risk of accident to, not of whether I'm doing over 18mph. Fact.

Oh, and "deemed" by who?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Whether I'm a danger or not is a function of whether there's who I pose a risk of accident to, not of whether I'm doing over 18mph. Fact.
> 
> Oh, and "deemed" by who?



DfT Guidance!!




> Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road.



Local Transport Notes on Walking and Ccling - Annex D, Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists. July 2004


----------



## gbb (29 Oct 2007)

Cycle paths in some cases actually 'grey' the laws regarding cycling on paths.
In Peterborough, there is a massive network of , some good, some bad shared cyclepaths. Some go right through housing estates, and its not always clear exactly where the paths start and end.

So, what do you end up with...cyclists cycling everywhere. The truth is, ive never heard anyone complain, EXCEPT in the city centre, where there is a strictly enforced ban.
FWIW, i agree with Bonj, if a path is used considerately, why not.
But it depends on the path and where ?
A busy path is a no no for me...actually, if there are any more than say two peds...i wouldnt use it....or at least with extreme caution and respect for the peds. Weaving in and out is just not on.

Which brings me to Bonj's cam post 'how to negotiate an underpass'
Although you there, i was not, you may have been more 'spacially aware' than the video shows...the opening shot shows you riding up to a blind junction. You dont know who or whats round the corner. You ride through the first underpass, past several peds and a toddler, into the second underpass, past a couple who moved to one side for you....and onwards.

I'd like to think i wouldnt ride your way....but i know if i were honest, there have been times in the past.

But, it never hurts to question oneself...am i really right ? Only that way do you ever really learn or become a better person.


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

gbb said:


> FWIW, i agree with Bonj


that's another quid in the jar...



gbb said:


> Which brings me to Bonj's cam post 'how to negotiate an underpass'
> Although you there, i was not, you may have been more 'spacially aware' than the video shows...the opening shot shows you riding up to a blind junction. You dont know who or whats round the corner. You ride through the first underpass, past several peds and a toddler, *into the second underpass*, past a couple who moved to one side for you....and onwards.


 LOL 
It's the SAME underpass! in case it's not obvious... The second bit just shows me riding BACK through it the other way, a few hours later (or earlier, can't remember)

if you notice though, on the first time I go through it (going out of town) just after I pass a woman in black with a cap on the left (who incidentally was a beggar and tried to get me to stop) I swing right out to the right (notice that?) so I can attack the steps from a straighter angle, this also has the benefit of taking the slight corner much wider, and thus being able to see anyone behind the bit of concrete or at the bottom of the steps in good time. Don't forget the camera's on the bars, so at the point where all you can see on the video is the railing (at the point where I've subtitled it with 'in fact they often go the long way round') I'm getting a clear view round the corner and seeing if there's anybody on the steps or at the bottom of them where i'm going to land.


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> DfT Guidance!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't give a damn what the DfT guildelines say. I'll be the one to judge whether my cycling on the pavement is dangerous or not. And if I say it's not, it's not. That may be because I've stopped or slowed down to a walking pace to give way to peds, or it may be because there's no peds around so I deem it to be perfectly safe to do 20mph. Either way, I don't cycle dangerously. Full stop. Because of the fact that I don't cause _danger_ to anybody. Not because the DfT says so.


----------



## gbb (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> that's another quid in the jar...
> 
> 
> LOL
> ...




LOL, shouda realised. At one point you enter a road, car rear lights showing. I thought at that moment....christ, that got dark (ish) quick


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

just an observation don't you think it's pleasing how the council have provided a little smooth slope in the middle of the steps next to the railing for me to go up?   aaaaah... they are caring.


----------



## Elmer Fudd (30 Oct 2007)

Squaggles said:


> I realise this is against the law but is it ever ok to ride on the pavement ? Would you do it for the sake of personal safety if a particular stretch of road or junction was too dangerous ?
> The standard of driving in this country seems to have got steadily worse in the time I have been riding a bike and sometimes I just do not feel safe . The alternative would be to get the bus which I really don't want to do .



In Durham I cycle on the road towards the county council office then hit the footpath down the hill (Framwellgate Perth) and turn left across the river until I hit 'Claypath'. Reason being, although not bothered by road cycling this road merges from 2 lanes into 1 and everybody has to " get in before the car in front. Then there are traffic lights at the bottom (no prob) but when you bear left you have a 4 lane bridge (2 each way) just about wide enough for a smallish car ( a Ka is wide enough to fill one lane), but you get bigger cars, buses, lorries etc. trying to overtake you, so I'll stick to the pavement thank you (obviously at a "pedestrian type speed ")


----------



## surfgurl (7 Nov 2007)

I cycle on the pavement for part of my commute. I cycle on the road through town to the roundabout on the edge of town. For the next mile and a half the road is at national speed limit and runs straight to the roundabout for the M5 junction. I turn left here onto the main A road until I reach the country lane to get to work. I cycle on the pavement, where there is one, for all of this bit.
The difference between my speed and the speed of the passing cars and lorries is too great. I get off the bike if there is a pedestrian and that's only happened twice in the last 6 months. The police have driven passed while I have been cycling on the pavement and I am ready with my argument if they ever stop me.


----------



## classic33 (9 Nov 2007)

Bonj. You've got others talking now.

See:

http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6669


----------



## yellow v2 (10 Nov 2007)

FWIW I agree with bonj on most,only disagree with his interpretation of safe speed, 15mph way to fast on a public footpath!


----------



## dondare (11 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> I don't give a damn what the DfT guildelines say. I'll be the one to judge whether my cycling on the pavement is dangerous or not. And if I say it's not, it's not. That may be because I've stopped or slowed down to a walking pace to give way to peds, or it may be because there's no peds around so I deem it to be perfectly safe to do 20mph. Either way, I don't cycle dangerously. Full stop. Because of the fact that I don't cause _danger_ to anybody. Not because the DfT says so.




If you were prosecuted for cycling on the footpath you wouldn't be the judge; there'd be a real judge. If you were prosecuted for cycling dangerously on a shared-use path the DfT guidelines might be considered relevant by the court regardless of your own opinion.
The main danger of cycling on footpaths or shared-use paths is to the cyclist, not pedestrians. You are more likely to be killed or injured when you cross roads on a bike than when you ride along them correctly and legally; and how far can you get on a footpath without crossing roads?


----------



## dondare (11 Nov 2007)

classic33 said:


> Bonj. You've got others talking now.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6669



Are all the posters on that forum real cops? They don't seem to know any more about it than anyone else.


----------



## classic33 (13 Nov 2007)

dondare said:


> Are all the posters on that forum real cops? They don't seem to know any more about it than anyone else.



Not certain on that one. Got a point in the forum direction, by a police officer who knows me.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> I don't give a damn what the DfT guildelines say. I'll be the one to judge whether my cycling on the pavement is dangerous or not. And if I say it's not, it's not. That may be because I've stopped or slowed down to a walking pace to give way to peds, or it may be because there's no peds around so I deem it to be perfectly safe to do 20mph. Either way, I don't cycle dangerously. Full stop. Because of the fact that I don't cause _danger_ to anybody. Not because the DfT says so.




Which is part of the problem.......

There is a whole industry based on the I can travel at what speed I like because I judge things perfectly all the time.

The 18 mph is way too fast, although it is the differential rather than the actual speed that causes problems.


----------



## PaulSB (18 Nov 2007)

bonj said:


> I don't give a damn what the DfT guildelines say. I'll be the one to judge whether my cycling on the pavement is dangerous or not. And if I say it's not, it's not. That may be because I've stopped or slowed down to a walking pace to give way to peds, or it may be because there's no peds around so I deem it to be perfectly safe to do 20mph. Either way, I don't cycle dangerously. Full stop. Because of the fact that I don't cause _danger_ to anybody. Not because the DfT says so.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/7098383.stm

I don't often post but the times I come on here and see this member making idiotic statements is too frequent to be coincidental. Personally I never ride on the pavement for two simple reasons; it's far more dangerous to me as a cyclist to be on the pavement than the road, and secondly by acting in such a highly irresponsible manner (pavement cycling) you give all cyclists a bad name. 

I can't think of circumstances which justify pavement cycling and feel all those who do cycle on the pavement should consider the diservice they do to their fellow, law-abidding, cyclists. Unlikley though as those who do pavement cycle are clearly somewhat selfish.


----------



## dudi (18 Nov 2007)

Recently I was caught by a cycling policeman, riding my bike on a stretch of pavement close to my work. He stopped me and advised me that he was obliged to give me a £30 fixed penalty unless I could give a very good reason as to why I was on the pavement. 

We had a short conversation and the kind policeman gently persuaded me that the real reason I was on the pavement was a matter of personal safety as I thought the junction was too dangerous with out adequate provision of cycle lanes etc.

This seemed to be OK by him and I didn't get the fixed penalty. 

It would seem that it is against the law, but exceptions can be made if you are deemed to be riding "sensibly" and if you are there as a matter of personal safety.


----------



## cyclebum (19 Nov 2007)

dudi said:


> We had a short conversation and the kind policeman gently persuaded me that the real reason I was on the pavement was a matter of personal safety as I thought the junction was too dangerous with out adequate provision of cycle lanes etc.



I would have thought that as long as ridden with repect to peds, the priority should be personal safety. As a more eco friendly way of travelling surely cyclists should be encouraged, rather than discouraged due to fear of busy roads, but also fear of being fined by breaking the law on the pavement!
I must admit there is a roundabout in our (small )town that is approached in 2 lanes which becomes a filter (left lane to turn left and right lane for straight on only). At times it can be difficult enough switching lanes in a car and as yet I have not been brave enough on my bike so I use a short stretch of pavement, though I have never encountered a ped here. If ridden with caution I don't see that it's a problem. But I have seen a local policeman stop a youth riding on the pavement and ask his age. It turns out there is a max age you can legally ride but I can't remember the age he gave.

We have some pavement footpath/cyclepaths but they are only on 1 side of the road and it can take for ever to get across to be able to use it as this is where the A34 comes though the town. Just outside the town on the A34 I use the path there as I feel safer being nat speed limit and quite a few lorries etc.., but it is badly kept with lots of overgrowth, bulging tree roots, pot holes and so on which is fine on my mtb but I would imagine not so good on a road bike.


----------



## Cab (19 Nov 2007)

dudi said:


> Recently I was caught by a cycling policeman, riding my bike on a stretch of pavement close to my work. He stopped me and advised me that he was obliged to give me a £30 fixed penalty unless I could give a very good reason as to why I was on the pavement.
> 
> We had a short conversation and the kind policeman gently persuaded me that the real reason I was on the pavement was a matter of personal safety as I thought the junction was too dangerous with out adequate provision of cycle lanes etc.
> 
> ...



Thats how the law is meant to be enforced. Note this statement from Paul Boateng, a home office minister when this was introduced:

"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."

You can find various quotes like that directed to PCs and PCSOs. When you encounter policing that isn't in accordance with that advice, get in touch with your local chief constable; for my money, it sounds like your local bobby got it right.

All of that said, it would still be better if you could fathom a way of taking junctions like that on the road than on the pavement. Better form in all sorts of ways to do so, if you can.


----------



## Tynan (19 Nov 2007)

that and coppers aren't keen on paperwork

there almost always an alternative route, I have no problem at all at choosing a route that avoids junctions I don't feel are safe


----------



## Cab (19 Nov 2007)

Tynan said:


> that and coppers aren't keen on paperwork
> 
> there almost always an alternative route, I have no problem at all at choosing a route that avoids junctions I don't feel are safe



I do wish that was true, many of my journeys don't have routes that avoid junctions I'd rather not use. 

Theres one junction where if I'm turning right, so taking the third exit at a roundabout, I'm struggling to get on and off without having some tit undertake me on the left when I'm signalling to get off the roundabout. I could go around the outside of the roundabout of course, but I don't want to die on the road.


----------



## cyclebum (19 Nov 2007)

Cab said:


> Theres one junction where if I'm turning right, so taking the third exit at a roundabout, I'm struggling to get on and off without having some tit undertake me on the left when I'm signalling to get off the roundabout. I could go around the outside of the roundabout of course, but I don't want to die on the road.



This is a similar problem to mine. All other junctions I can find an alternative and 1 roundabout there is always a pelican crossing if I'm desperate (not resorted to this yet though)
but this 1 roundabout, my alternative takes me quite a long way round, and I only end up at another juction almost as bad anyway


----------



## dondare (19 Nov 2007)

What actually kills cyclists?
Being inside a left-turning HGV.
Riding off the footpath onto the road and getting hit.

Cyclists get killed when they are trying to avoid getting killed, either by keeping so far over to the left that they aren't noticed, or by riding on the footpath instead of the road. The way to stay alive and make progress is to integrate with the vehicular traffic; get into the correct lane and go with the flow.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Nov 2007)

Interesting on this evening.

Rowner Lane in Gosport, following a vehicle that drives on to the pavement and then parks on it, the outer two wheels just off the pavement, so that most of the car is now causing an obstruction.

THe British School of Motoring instructor then sits in the illegally parked car and chats to the pupil for several minutes.

NOw with driver training at such a low level that the instructor has allowed this during a lesson is it any wonder we have problems with pavements being abused?

More worryingly, what other illegal or simply poor manoeuvres is this pupil being allowed to get away with?


----------



## dondare (19 Nov 2007)

Cunobelin said:


> Interesting on this evening.
> 
> Rowner Lane in Gosport, following a vehicle that drives on to the pavement and then parks on it, the outer two wheels just off the pavement, so that most of the car is now causing an obstruction.
> 
> ...



"Now, can you tell me what you just did wrong?"

"Er...."

"You mounted the footpath illegally. Whilst on the footpath you are not insured to drive this car. You are parked illegally. If you did this in a test you would fail the test. If you did this after passing your test you could lose your license." 

A valuable lesson, indeed.


----------



## cyclebum (20 Nov 2007)

dondare said:


> What actually kills cyclists?
> Being inside a left-turning HGV.
> Riding off the footpath onto the road and getting hit.
> 
> Cyclists get killed when they are trying to avoid getting killed, either by keeping so far over to the left that they aren't noticed, or by riding on the footpath instead of the road. The way to stay alive and make progress is to integrate with the vehicular traffic; get into the correct lane and go with the flow.



The way to stay alive may be technically correct as you state it, but when you have spent years as a car car driver and new to the horrors of how so many motorists (regardless of vehicle) treat cyclists Intergating with vehicular flow is not always easy if fitness does not necessarily allow and getting into the correct lane can be even more frightning. I know alot comes down to confidence but that can take time. Just as I think I'm making progress in that way some idiot does something to knock it back again. Is it therefore any wonder we sometimes need to retreat to the safety of the pavement when self preservation demands it?


----------



## dondare (20 Nov 2007)

cyclebum said:


> The way to stay alive may be technically correct as you state it, but when you have spent years as a car car driver and new to the horrors of how so many motorists (regardless of vehicle) treat cyclists Intergating with vehicular flow is not always easy if fitness does not necessarily allow and getting into the correct lane can be even more frightning. I know alot comes down to confidence but that can take time. Just as I think I'm making progress in that way some idiot does something to knock it back again. Is it therefore any wonder we sometimes need to retreat to the safety of the pavement when self preservation demands it?


The safety advandages of riding on the pavement are entirely negated and then some by the dangers of riding off the pavement when you need to rejoin the road, or cross the road in order to continue riding on the footpath.
If you ride any distance on the footpath you will have to cross a lot of roads. It's how pedestrians get killed, about 760 of them each year, (more than five times the number of cyclists), and cyclists who use the footpath risk the same fate.


----------



## cyclebum (20 Nov 2007)

I think you misunderstand me, you seem to think I mean cycling on the pavement and staying there. I mentioned in a previous post, and I think I am right in others that have said the same, the intention is only to use the pavement when there is a difficult junction ect.., but only riding with caution. I would only ever use the pavement continuously as a cycle path when it is designate to do so, but there are times when it is safer to use short stretches.

I am sure I do not live in the only area where some pavements have been split to use as shared paths with cyclists and pedestrians alike. Cyclists Ive seen using them tend to stick to the cycle side, yet pedestrians walk where they like putting themselves at risk. as long as a cyclist is sensible enough to use caution, what is the difference in safety when using a non designated cycle pavement?

Hope this has come out as I intended it!!


----------



## rich p (20 Nov 2007)

Blimey, there are some po-faced people on here!!!

Just occasionally most cyclists go onto the pavement for what seems to be a valid reason. When I feel I have to, I don't hammer along at 25mph, I scoot or carefully go round the obstruction before returning to the tarmac. I push the bike or wait if there are other people around. It doesn't make me a bad person - get over it


----------



## cyclebum (20 Nov 2007)

rich p said:


> Blimey, there are some po-faced people on here!!!
> 
> Just occasionally most cyclists go onto the pavement for what seems to be a valid reason. When I feel I have to, I don't hammer along at 25mph, I scoot or carefully go round the obstruction before returning to the tarmac. I push the bike or wait if there are other people around. It doesn't make me a bad person - get over it



Thank you, that is what I was trying to say , you just put it alot better


----------



## dondare (21 Nov 2007)

Just be careful when you rejoin the road.


----------



## dondare (21 Nov 2007)

cyclebum said:


> I am sure I do not live in the only area where some pavements have been split to use as shared paths with cyclists and pedestrians alike. Cyclists Ive seen using them tend to stick to the cycle side, *yet pedestrians walk where they like putting themselves at risk.* as long as a cyclist is sensible enough to use caution, what is the difference in safety when using a non designated cycle pavement?



Pedestrians have right of way on shared-use paths, including on the cyclist's side of the white line. It is one of the many reasons why these paths are bollocks.


----------



## rich p (21 Nov 2007)

dondare said:


> Just be careful when you rejoin the road.




Phew, thanks for the advice. I was going to put on a blindfold and launch myself between 2 lorries. 

ps. Oh and be sure you switch off all the sockets before you go to bed


----------



## John the Monkey (21 Nov 2007)

dondare said:


> It is one of the many reasons why these paths are bollocks.



I used one local to me[1] recently - the surface, in the damp is like a bloody ice rink - made a gentle turn to cross the road (at about 10mph) and the back wheel went whizzing from under me immediately. The only good thing I can say about it is that there's never people on it, so at least it's not stressful from that point of view.


[1] On the way to the David Lloyd Centre at Cheadle Royal, opposite the zebra crossing. It's lethal in the wet, if anyone reading should pass that way watch out. (It does make it far easier to cross the road than up by the extremely busy roundabout though)


----------



## dondare (21 Nov 2007)

rich p said:


> Phew, thanks for the advice. I was going to put on a blindfold and launch myself between 2 lorries.



I have seen a good number of cyclists ride from pavement to road, I have never yet seen one who checked first. It's certainly one of the most common causes of bicycle accidents.


----------



## PaulSB (21 Nov 2007)

rich p said:


> Blimey, there are some po-faced people on here!!!
> 
> Just occasionally most cyclists go onto the pavement for what seems to be a valid reason.



Do you really think this is true? 

I realise on this thread I'm something of a disenting voice and as a very infrequent poster this may look as though I am attempting to play devil's advocate or worse. Correct road use by cyclists is very close to my heart and I feel it's important we all behave properly.

When I'm out I never see people I would consider serious cyclists using the pavement. So where are all the riders who do this? Granted I see a lot of folk who appear to be simply riding a bike doing so with no consideration for others and going wherever they wish. Surely none of us would count ourselves in this group?


----------



## Arch (22 Nov 2007)

rich p said:


> Phew, thanks for the advice. I was going to put on a blindfold and launch myself between 2 lorries.




You either live in a very careful town, or you haven't watched many pavement cyclists... I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this! I swear a lot of 'people on bikes' have some sort of Holy Protection, because if I did the stuff they get away with, I'd be flattened. Or flatten someone else.


----------



## rich p (22 Nov 2007)

I rarely if ever go on pavements myself , in truth, I just thought it was getting a bit sanctimonious. TBH, I don't see much evidence in Brighton, of the truly awful cycling behaviour that gets a lot of airplay on this forum. Obviously there's a bit of RLJ'ing but mainly on pedestrian lights, the odd bit of wrong way down a quiet one-way street but cyclists in these parts are largely reasonably well behaved. I guess us Southern softies are all law-abiding toffs in general.
I do cycle in London with my daughter sometimes and I find that a bit of an eye-opener (and sphincter opener too)


----------



## giant man (22 Nov 2007)

It's illegal for a reason, and I condemn anyone who does ride on the pavement. What's wrong with the road for god's sake?


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Nov 2007)

rich p said:


> I rarely if ever go on pavements myself , in truth, I just thought it was getting a bit sanctimonious. TBH, I don't see much evidence in Brighton, of the truly awful cycling behaviour that gets a lot of airplay on this forum.



Just from last night's commute, I saw three people in the city centre with no lights whatsoever or reflectives. I saw at least two cycling on a non shared use pavement. Of five of us approaching a red (in a mixed/bus cycle lane) I was the only one who stopped (an utterly pointless jump, as the light 20yds ahead was red and on a junction far too busy to jump - no vehicles behind us at the time and no chance of any waiting to the side of us - also the sequence is such that the bus lane one changes and then as I arrive at the junction that one changes). Of the people using the new shared use pavement near Owens' Park, both that I noticed while (I was) in traffic showed very little concern for pedestrians (cycling inches away from them until the peds were intimidated into moving over).

Maybe it's cities? Especially around the time of year the students start, I see some truly appalling cycling in Manchester.


----------



## inaperfectworld (26 Nov 2007)

i sometimes feel that it is justifiable where junction and road layout makes no allowance/it extrememly difficult to use the road. i think it is only "unsafe cycling " on pavements that the police are supposed to question, but this is very vague some police nmight take it into account others not. however pavement cycling does nothing for public perceptions of cycling and i do get off and push where the junction is awkward or unsafe.


----------



## blue trice (14 Jun 2008)

*cycling on pavement*

from blue trice,
still do it, just remember slow down if u see anyone walking,
don`t go mad,
plus when your`re cycling how often do you see motorists using a mobile
and driving,
if u report them, the police will tell you--
they have to be seen by a police officer-----
So-----be careful

blue trice


----------



## Odyssey (15 Jun 2008)

I know this is an old topic, but I just can't help myself. 



PaulSB said:


> When I'm out I never see people I would consider serious cyclists using the pavement.



You mean they don't wear team kit and wax their legs? Half of these so called serious cyclists on their 2k bikes have been cycling for no more than 3 months, and once summer's up they'll stop again. 



dondare said:


> The safety advandages of riding on the pavement are entirely negated and then some by the dangers of riding off the pavement when you need to rejoin the road, or cross the road in order to continue riding on the footpath.
> If you ride any distance on the footpath you will have to cross a lot of roads. It's how pedestrians get killed, about 760 of them each year, (more than five times the number of cyclists), and cyclists who use the footpath risk the same fate.



So, there's 5 times more pedestrians killed crossing roads than there are cyclists killed. For the chances of being being killed as a pedestrian crossing the road to be directly proportionate to that of a cyclist riding on the road, there would have to be 5 times more pedestrians than cyclists. 

What do you think that actually figure is. 500? 5,000? It isn't 5. Your evidence suggests that riding on the road is far more dangerous than crossing it. Besides, most of those that get killed crossing roads do so because they walk around with their eyes shut. Stop, look and listen, it'll be cool. 

I ride on the pavement all the time. Since I live in the arse end of nowhere, I can do this for miles between villages and not pass anyone. And if I do pass anyone (which is rare) I'll generally slow down and move over onto the grass, giving them the entire pavement (would that be inconsiderate??) or onto the road. 

I ride on the pavement because I prefer the freedom, and it's nice to relax without 7 tonne lorries passing you at almost 70mph leaving only inches of room. I also ride on the roads depending on where I am and how fast I want to get to my destination, but the paths that I tend to ride on are far less populated by walkers and pedestrians than the Sustrans cycle paths I ride on. Is there really a problem with this?


----------



## mr_cellophane (16 Jun 2008)

Rush Green Road is covered by 2 LAs. For the part in Havering the CP is a narrow shared pavement. It is badly maintained, very bumpy and impossible to do more than 10mph comfortably. The part in Dagenham, has smaller paving slabs and is a much smoother ride.
The road for "recreational" cyclst is a bit of a no go area as parked cars restrict the road to one lane in each direction.
The CP also crosses lots of side turnings and access routes to the rear of the houses.


----------



## Lisa1979 (17 Jun 2008)

My bright green tabard keeps me seen, i think this is the 1st most important thing to remember!


----------



## JtB (25 Jun 2008)

I'm only just taking to cycling again after a VERY long break. During my time away from the saddle I never saw anything wrong with cyclists using a pavements, especially as my sister got run over by a lorry 15 years ago while riding along the A6.


----------



## 4F (25 Jun 2008)

Don't ride on the pavement and when my kids cycle (10, 8 and the 4 year old on the tag along) to school they use the road. How are they to get any road sense cycling on the pavement ?


----------



## 4F (25 Jun 2008)

> By you teaching them. I doubt you'd let your 4-year old out on a busy main road riding solo. But there are other roads where you would.



I don't believe stabilisers would really be the done thing on the main road. My eldest 2 have been riding on the main road since they were 5 however I will concede that we live in a rural location so they only main thing they have to get used to is mums in 4x4's doing the school run


----------



## summerdays (26 Jun 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Don't ride on the pavement and when my kids cycle (10, 8 and the 4 year old on the tag along) to school they use the road. How are they to get any road sense cycling on the pavement ?



I'm impressed ... my 10 y o ... has lousy road sense (and I mean really lousy despite always walking/cycling to school), and my 7 y o I considered too small until recently as he was on 16" wheels (felt he wasn't high enough to appear on the car drivers vision). But there are sections away from the school and the pavement driving cars where I encourage them to cycle on the road. And if the pavement is busy I get the 7 y o to drop onto the road for a bit, but he has been taught not to steam through pedestrians but wait behind.

There are other times when we all cycle on the road but its a little hectic near the school (narrow, parent parked up road = single file traffic which doesn't want to give way to on coming cars). I have been known to cycle down that section at a nice pootle pace knowing that its irritating those parents trying to get as near their childs classroom as possible, in the vague hope they might consider parking just a tiny bit further away and walking that last 100 m.


----------



## Scoosh (26 Jun 2008)

> I have been known to cycle down that section at a nice pootle pace knowing that its irritating those parents trying to get as near their childs classroom as possible, in the vague hope they might consider parking just a tiny bit further away and walking that last 100 m.




but ...


> .... in the vague hope they might consider parking just a tiny bit further away and *walking* that last 100 m.



'What ? WALK ? When I can block the traffic at a very busy time ?
dream on ....


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jun 2008)

In Portsmouth we don't have an opportunity to cycle on pavements, there are too many cars on them.....


----------

