# Cycle users on pavements.



## simongt (27 Aug 2018)

This should start a few views / opinions flying - !
In the fair city of Norwich, on the basis that it's no different from any other city / town in this respect, more cycle users seem to ride the pavements than the roads. There's no point in asking them why; you'll just get a load of abuse. I know, I've tried. 
So, why do they do it - ? Is it simply because they can get away with it and it saves them having to stop or slow down for mundane things like traffic signs - ? It's also common to see them cycling along the pavement with a cycle lane on the road right beside them - ! 
If they come across pedestrians, either solo or with prams, disability frames or whatever who have the temerity to also be using the same bit of pavement, the pedestrian is expected to get out of the cycle users way and they usually do. Any comment or reaction from said pedestrian is invariably greeted with abuse. 
Thoughts on the matter folks - !


----------



## Apollonius (27 Aug 2018)

As any Ipswich Town fan will tell you, this is because the entire population of Norwich is comprised of inbred cretins. Football fans seem to be given to wild generalisations.


----------



## Heltor Chasca (27 Aug 2018)

666 posts @simongt Are you the devil reincarnated? 

I think you’ll find it’s down to shoot infrastructure. Segregated modal transport is a way forward. Mixed use will always result in conflict. 

It’s an old drum that has been beaten till the skins have ripped and become inaudible to the intolerant.


----------



## screenman (27 Aug 2018)

Often in these parts they are things on bikes, which is different in my opinion than a cyclist.


----------



## Slick (27 Aug 2018)

screenman said:


> Often in these parts they are things on bikes, which is different in my opinion than a cyclist.


Which in my opinion is the dictionary definition of a cyclist.


----------



## Slick (27 Aug 2018)

I've posted this before but I make no apologies for choosing about 400 yards of pavement rather than one particular roundabout on a dual carriageway on a near 15 mile commute. It was the exact same on a previous 10 mile commute which is just common sense.


----------



## winjim (27 Aug 2018)

First let's get the cars off the pavements. Then we can talk about bikes.


----------



## simongt (27 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> the entire population of Norwich is comprised of inbred cretins. Football fans seem to be given to wild generalisations.


As this appears to be a wild generalisation, state your evidence - ! 
And as I'm not and never have been a football fan in any way, shape or form, your statement is a bit shakey to say the least - !


----------



## Drago (27 Aug 2018)

What are you defining as a pavement? Unless there's a local by law prohibiting such antics, it's only specifically an offence on a footway.

Cyclists on the footway isn't hard or clever, but I'm with winjim on this - motor vehicles on the footway present a far greater hazard to life and limb, but many of the people that whittle about slavering puppy torturing cyclists will park their car on a surface intended for pedestrians without a second thought.


----------



## snorri (27 Aug 2018)

simongt said:


> Thoughts on the matter folks - !


There is also an increasing use of pedestrian areas by the drivers of motor vehicles, which in turn is forcing pedestrians to use the roads more and more for getting about town. The general confusion as to who polices what has left our towns with very little policing at all.
Anarchy rules out there!


----------



## Drago (27 Aug 2018)

They've put an anchovy in charge? No wonder chaos reigns these days.


----------



## Dave 123 (27 Aug 2018)

Cambridge, and specifically the Evening News is in permanent meltdown about stuff like this along with RLJing, 2 abreast, headphones, helmets.

Most of it is bollarks, apart from pavement & RLJing in my opinion*

Unless you’re under 10 years old you have no business on a pavement whilst on a bike and you should be sent to prison for ever if you jump a red light.


----------



## Drago (27 Aug 2018)

Prison in Turkey.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (27 Aug 2018)

Sticking a painting of something that looks like a bike on a pavement and then claiming shared usage has a lot to answer for


----------



## Dave 123 (27 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> Prison in Turkey.




Or turkey in prison at Christmas.


----------



## Jody (27 Aug 2018)

I have no problem with people riding on pavements or pedestrian areas if done with respect and care. But there are many variables. Speed, density of pedestrians, courteousness, time of day etc.


----------



## HLaB (27 Aug 2018)

Dave 123 said:


> Cambridge, and specifically the Evening News is in permanent meltdown about stuff like this along with RLJing, 2 abreast, headphones, helmets.
> 
> Most of it is bollarks, apart from pavement & RLJing in my opinion*
> 
> Unless you’re under 10 years old you have no business on a pavement whilst on a bike and you should be sent to prison for ever if you jump a red light.


At a guess 'proper' pavement cyclists are out numbered by road cyclists 100+ to 1. It still amazes me that that 1 feels so insecure about being on the road that they are willing to go out of their way and be constantly stopped by peds and side roads.
Still out numbered thankfully (at a guess 15 to 1) you get numpties that just cut the corner regardless of who is on the pavement. Those numpties also tend to RLJ


----------



## Dave 123 (27 Aug 2018)

HLaB said:


> At a guess 'proper' pavement cyclists are out numbered by road cyclists 100+ to 1. It still amazes me that that 1 feels so insecure about being on the road that they are willing to go out of their way and be constantly stopped by peds and side roads.
> Still out numbered thankfully (at a guess 15 to 1) you get numpties that just cut the corner regardless of who is on the pavement. Those numpties also tend to RLJ




There’s a lot of cutters in Cambridge. Most are middle aged, non foreign language students.


----------



## sheddy (27 Aug 2018)

folks are frightened

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/why-so-angry/


----------



## Drago (27 Aug 2018)

Jody said:


> I have no problem with people riding on pavements or pedestrian areas if done with respect and care. But there are many variables. Speed, density of pedestrians, courteousness, time of day etc.



But who decides what's respectful or careful? Bottom line is it's unlawful to cycle on the footway. If people can't obey even the most basic, simple, fundamental laws the we've no hope when it comes to the serious ones.

Footways are for transport by foot. I don't know what's so difficult to comprehend about that.


----------



## HLaB (27 Aug 2018)

Dave 123 said:


> There’s a lot of cutters in Cambridge. Most are middle aged, non foreign language students.


Its definitely a good number, it seems like every 2nd red light. Im guessing when the students come back it'll be worse


----------



## Dave 123 (27 Aug 2018)

HLaB said:


> Its definitely a good number, it seems like every 2nd red light. Im guessing when the students come back it'll be worse


Don’t you dare say anything about those angels!


----------



## Alien8 (27 Aug 2018)

snorri said:


> There is also an increasing use of pedestrian areas by the drivers of motor vehicles...



This happened outside my local primary school a couple of weeks or so ago.



And I feel an urge to repeat this one on the approach to my village, some time ago, but still very funny.


----------



## Alien8 (27 Aug 2018)

simongt said:


> So, why do they do it - ?



For your casual cyclist, I think it is because they truly believe that is where they should be, and this is because they are continually being told that cycling on roads is a dangerous thing and the very last place they should be is on the tarmac mixing it with the cars.


----------



## marshmella (27 Aug 2018)

Dave 123 said:


> Cambridge, and specifically the Evening News is in permanent meltdown about stuff like this along with RLJing, 2 abreast, headphones, helmets.
> 
> Most of it is bollarks, apart from pavement & RLJing in my opinion*
> 
> Unless you’re under 10 years old you have no business on a pavement whilst on a bike and you should be sent to prison for ever if you jump a red light.


Just got back from a day in Cambridge, can't say i saw too many cycling offences and the only bikes on pavements were the ones fastened to the street furniture, railings and stands etc in fact it was incredibly busy.


----------



## gbb (27 Aug 2018)

I'm an occasional pavement user....but with strict self discipline. For instance, on my old commute I had a roundabout to negotiate with a fast dual carriageway feeding onto it. I'd been nearly knocked off once by a driver who was blinded by his screen pillar (tbf, he stopped and apologised profusely...and I understood how it happened)
This r/a is on an industrial estate where there's hardly ever anyone on the path anyway so I use it as a safer option than the road. My safety is more important than blindly obeying rules (IF and only IF I'm not endangering anyone else)
If people are on it, I either get back on the road, or move waaay to one side to give them room.

Then in Peterborough, we are blessed with not perfect but extensive cycle routes / paths that are often not obviously so, so there's a culture of riding on paths here anyway. It's vague where some start, end, or exist at all.

But any nobber who expects peds to get out the way deserves a good slap.


----------



## Dave 123 (27 Aug 2018)

marshmella said:


> Just got back from a day in Cambridge, can't say i saw too many cycling offences and the only bikes on pavements were the ones fastened to the street furniture, railings and stands etc in fact it was incredibly busy.




It was a bank holiday. They were all being good for the day trippers.


----------



## Milkfloat (27 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> But who decides what's respectful or careful? Bottom line is it's unlawful to cycle on the footway. If people can't obey even the most basic, simple, fundamental laws the we've no hope when it comes to the serious ones.
> 
> Footways are for transport by foot. I don't know what's so difficult to comprehend about that.



Being part of the system, you should be well aware that often the law is an ass and the rest of the time a very blunt instrument. If we address the causes of people riding on footways then perhaps we could reduce it, plus targeting dangerous riding on pavements in general would also reduce pedestrian anxiety.

I make no apology for riding my kids to school along the footway, if they don’t ride now perhaps they never would.


----------



## Jody (27 Aug 2018)

Drago said:


> But who decides what's respectful or careful? Bottom line is it's unlawful to cycle on the footway. If people can't obey even the most basic, simple, fundamental laws the we've no hope when it comes to the serious ones.
> 
> Footways are for transport by foot. I don't know what's so difficult to comprehend about that.



I appreciate what the law is and its not difficult to comprehend but I have no problem with people doing it in the right circumstance.


----------



## NorthernDave (27 Aug 2018)

My heart sinks a little every time I see an adult cyclist on the pavement. Bikes are transport and should be on the road.

But I'd agree that the situation isn't helped by sub-standard cycling infrastructure. 
Lets not forget I live just a stones throw from Leeds' Cycle Superhighway and large parts of it are simply crap and wholly unfit for purpose (this cost nearly £30 million, officially, although I doubt we'll ever see the final actual cost). 
There are the terrible 'shared spaces' with minimal signage and clear conflict with peds, while other parts are so narrow you've no chance of getting past a slower cyclist, or a mobility scooter user who've also been given carte blanche to use it, or the peds who constantly wander into the 'segregated' bits of it due to poor delineation.


----------



## Apollonius (27 Aug 2018)

simongt said:


> As this appears to be a wild generalisation, state your evidence - !
> And as I'm not and never have been a football fan in any way, shape or form, your statement is a bit shakey to say the least - !


This is called selective quotation and is intellectually dishonest. If you look at the whole of my statement, it is very hard for anyone to disagree with. The point about "wild generalisation" is a literary device known as irony.


----------



## Tracy (27 Aug 2018)

I really dont see it as a problem. I'm a motorist, cyclist and at times a pedestrian. I've got no problem with sharing paths or roads with anyone else. 
I think people just need something to moan about and cyclists are an easy target. We are not wanted on the roads and not wanted on the paths. Cant win.


----------



## Apollonius (27 Aug 2018)

Chris Boardman would doubtless point out that 66 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by powered vehicles last year. Where exactly does the problem lie?


----------



## nickr (27 Aug 2018)

Apollonius said:


> Chris Boardman would doubtless point out that 66 pedestrians were killed on the pavement by powered vehicles last year. Where exactly does the problem lie?



Would Chris Boardman be able to give a link to verify the above?


----------



## Lonestar (28 Aug 2018)

sheddy said:


> folks are frightened
> 
> https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/why-so-angry/



That was an awful road and in the rush hour the motorbikes used the so called cycle lane (in the opposite direction) as well.I didn't mind that so much but some were real titheads.

I'm actually relieved this woman realised how dangerous it was there.It's never really changed.


----------



## dantheman (28 Aug 2018)

Tracy said:


> I really dont see it as a problem. I'm a motorist, cyclist and at times a pedestrian. I've got no problem with sharing paths or roads with anyone else.
> I think people just need something to moan about and cyclists are an easy target. We are not wanted on the roads and not wanted on the paths. Cant win.




Oh. Now that is a post I would like multiple times if I could...


----------



## dantheman (28 Aug 2018)

I use pavements occasionally if I see fit, it's not often and I'll always go slow (I'm happy to get off and walk behind a pedestrian if need be) and polite to anyone who may be there... I don't think it's right to use them often or not to expect to give way if you do use them.. 

Haters will hate whatever.. 

As a side story, last week I was on a wide cycle path (two lanes over 2m wide each clearly marked with bike pictures on both lanes) when I see a couple walking a dog on them ahead of me. I slow down, they didn't notice me behind them, as I went to go to the left past them they're dog (on one of those extending line leads) who was blocking the right side, decided to run across left... I had time so I switched and went to go past on the right... The dog goes back over to the right, by this time I'm close so instead of switching again I just skidded almost to a stop. At this point the lady (not holding the lead) jumped as she realised I was there, and said sorry, I'm afraid I did t reply and just went past (usually I'd always be polite)... 

Then, from the bloke I heard "oi, what you doing" called at me - I didn't stop or reply but I wonder, if they had been using the pedestrian walkway which is separated from the cycle lane by 1m grass verge (and clearly marked for pedestrians) and his dog was running across the road next to it, would he think the cars should stop for his dog also? 

It surprising how a person's reaction can sway how you feel about others doing the same thing, I realise he was just a NUMPTYS but then for the rest of my ride I was thinking what dic*s dog walkers are - when most aren't... 

People see this same stuff with cyclists and the stuff some of us do, which today was me - as I cut-through a closed road and simply didn't see the thin rope that was across the road, the cones came down the road with me.... What a NUMPTY.. I did stop and carried cones back, the road worker got out of van to see I was OK and I said "yes I'm fine mate, sorry I'm just being a dic* and didn't see the line across" - he was polite and laughed, I bet he took the pee out of me to the others(rightfully so).


----------



## Apollonius (28 Aug 2018)

nickr said:


> Would Chris Boardman be able to give a link to verify the above?


Given his prominence in this field, I am sure he would. A quick search online gives me figures from 2016, which are in line with that sort of number. 
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/pedestrians


----------



## mjr (29 Aug 2018)

simongt said:


> This should start a few views / opinions flying - !
> In the fair city of Norwich, on the basis that it's no different from any other city / town in this respect, more cycle users seem to ride the pavements than the roads. There's no point in asking them why; you'll just get a load of abuse. I know, I've tried.
> So, why do they do it - ? Is it simply because they can get away with it and it saves them having to stop or slow down for mundane things like traffic signs - ? It's also common to see them cycling along the pavement with a cycle lane on the road right beside them - !
> If they come across pedestrians, either solo or with prams, disability frames or whatever who have the temerity to also be using the same bit of pavement, the pedestrian is expected to get out of the cycle users way and they usually do. Any comment or reaction from said pedestrian is invariably greeted with abuse.
> Thoughts on the matter folks - !


Either you're cycling through different parts of Norwich than the one I used to live in (in Tuckswood, mostly) and still visit on a bike a few times a year, or your perception is out of whack or maybe people cycling on the pavement are more noticeable than those on the roads and cycleways. When I've been to Norwich, far more people are cycling on the pedalways than the footways.

And bizarrely, I can think of several places in Norwich where there is a cycle lane on the road ALONGSIDE a pavement which you are allowed/encouraged to cycle on. The Avenues may be the best-documented one online because of its involvement a few years ago in the Pink Pedalway Peeing-cycling-money-away-on-cars Parking Project. Interestingly, The Avenues has been closed to motorists recently for some works and the world hasn't ended like the local press said it would when Sustrans first suggested that closure decades ago - but of course, the works closure is only temporary.

Anyway, Norwich has too long encouraged people to cycle on footways that look little different from all other footways in the city, so it's no surprise that some just ride on all footways now, but it surprises me that there seem to be fairly few of them.


Drago said:


> What are you defining as a pavement? Unless there's a local by law prohibiting such antics, it's only specifically an offence on a footway.


There certainly used to be a general bylaw in Norwich named on signs prohibiting it in general and I thought it was the Norwich Paving Law from some year in the 1800s, but I find no mention of this online and it looks on Streetview like the set of signs I cycled past when I was younger has been removed...



Drago said:


> Cyclists on the footway isn't hard or clever, but I'm with winjim on this - motor vehicles on the footway present a far greater hazard to life and limb, but many of the people that whittle about slavering puppy torturing cyclists will park their car on a surface intended for pedestrians without a second thought.


Amen!


----------



## straas (29 Aug 2018)

My wife is considering using her bike to head up to the gym, but will only do it if she can use the pavement as she's terrified of the road traffic.


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (29 Aug 2018)

Tracy said:


> I really dont see it as a problem. I'm a motorist, cyclist and at times a pedestrian. I've got no problem with sharing paths or roads with anyone else.



It's a problem because of the bad attitude and lack of respect shown by most illegal pavement cyclists. Not only are they breaking the law, but they don't even have the decency to break the law in a polite manner by taking it slow and 
give way to those who are legally entitled to be there - which they are not. Basically rude ignorant Chavs on two wheels.


----------



## Tracy (29 Aug 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> It's a problem because of the bad attitude and lack of respect shown by most illegal pavement cyclists. Not only are they breaking the law, but they don't even have the decency to break the law in a polite manner by taking it slow and
> give way to those who are legally entitled to be there - which they are not. Basically rude ignorant Chavs on two wheels.



No different to rude ignorant charvs in four wheels. Or on two feet for that matter.


----------



## bigjim (29 Aug 2018)

There is a cycle-path near me that I use. It borders the insane A56. You have to negotiate busy side roads, pedestrians, dogs and the entrance and exit of a large petrol station. It then spits you out onto a huge, crazy, motorway roundabout. It is considered so dangerous they built an underpass for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. However some Walking society or other complained about having to share it with cyclists, so cyclists are banned from using it. I still use the underpass, as do most of the other local cyclists.


----------



## lane (29 Aug 2018)

Pro Tour Punditry said:


> Sticking a painting of something that looks like a bike on a pavement and then claiming shared usage has a lot to answer for



Indeed. Our local village Facebook group recently had query from a local regarding if a particular pavement (which has been widened) was a cycle path. They had been using it as such assuming it was because it is wide, and also because there is a shared use path further up the road. They had then been challenged for doing so. A number of people answered correctly that it wasn't, although the consensus seemed to be that it was acceptable to use it for bikes, because the road was "dangerous" (it isn't particularly) and that they wouldn't risk life and limb cycling on any road.


----------



## rugby bloke (29 Aug 2018)

There is a typical example along a stretch of the Bedford Road between a couple of village. Initially the pavement is designated as a shared footpath / cycle path. Once you get beyond one of the villages it reverts to being just a pavement, although nothing else has changed. Now the Bedford Road can be pretty busy and requires a degree of confidence / bloody mindedness to ride. Therefore the more nervous rider is going to take the shared space - what happens when this reverts to a pavement - they are going to continue riding along it, and who can blame them ?


----------



## MontyVeda (29 Aug 2018)

I'll cycle on the pavement when it suits me... but I'll bend plenty of other rules if it suits me. I guess it's how I roll


----------



## Tracy (29 Aug 2018)

bigjim said:


> There is a cycle-path near me that I use. It borders the insane A56. You have to negotiate busy side roads, pedestrians, dogs and the entrance and exit of a large petrol station. It then spits you out onto a huge, crazy, motorway roundabout. It is considered so dangerous they built an underpass for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. However some Walking society or other complained about having to share it with cyclists, so cyclists are banned from using it. I still use the underpass, as do most of the other local cyclists.



Thats just crazy. Put cyclists at risk because people won't share. What's the world coming to?


----------



## Tizme (29 Aug 2018)

Tracy said:


> Thats just crazy. Put cyclists at risk because people won't share. What's the world coming to?



It's because someone from the society once met a walker that had a friend who's grannies friend narrowly missed getting run over by a dangerous cyclist because they were on the pavement after they'd just cycled through a red light and held up a dozen cars in the rush hour!


----------



## SkipdiverJohn (29 Aug 2018)

Tracy said:


> Thats just crazy. Put cyclists at risk because people won't share. What's the world coming to?



Maybe the pedestrians don't like their safety being put at risk by reckless idiots on bikes tearing around at road speeds on the pavement? The irresponsible antics of quite a large minority of cyclists does the whole reputation of cyclists no favours whatsoever. Carving up pedestrians and shouting abuse at them for being in the way is not the way to win cyclists any friends.


----------



## lane (29 Aug 2018)

Sometimes I do ride on the pavement but I don't cause issues for any pedestrians. For example, I often come out of an off road cycle path, where I will need to cross / turn right onto a fairly busy road and then do a right turn after a short distance. I just turn right onto the pavement and save myself two manoeuvres crossing and then re-crossing a busy road. Rarely any pedestrians but if there are they will be shown utmost consideration including stopping to let them past if necessary.


----------



## mjr (29 Aug 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Maybe the pedestrians don't like their safety being put at risk by reckless idiots on bikes tearing around at road speeds on the pavement? The irresponsible antics of quite a large minority of cyclists does the whole reputation of cyclists no favours whatsoever. Carving up pedestrians and shouting abuse at them for being in the way is not the way to win cyclists any friends.


But carving up pedestrians and shouting abuse at them is illegal whether or not cycling is allowed. If you ban cycling somewhere, then those are the only people who still cycle there, but now you've no one else on bikes to set an example, record them on handlebar cameras or (cycle police...) arrest them easily.


----------



## Tracy (29 Aug 2018)

SkipdiverJohn said:


> Maybe the pedestrians don't like their safety being put at risk by reckless idiots on bikes tearing around at road speeds on the pavement? The irresponsible antics of quite a large minority of cyclists does the whole reputation of cyclists no favours whatsoever. Carving up pedestrians and shouting abuse at them for being in the way is not the way to win cyclists any friends.



Could say the same about motorists aswell. But people don't tar them all with the same brush.


----------



## GuyBoden (30 Aug 2018)

I cross at the lights on the A556 at Plumley and then ride on the pavement instead of the dual carriageway. A few years ago, a cyclist was killed riding on this part of the A556 dual carriageway, hit by a truck.............


----------



## Mrklaw (31 Aug 2018)

I find it all a bit confusing. Riding from Slough station there are some areas with the shared space sign, and pedestrian crossings with the combined 'person + bike' green man. But then there are long sections with no signs, but the crossings still have the bike on them - so are they shared pavement? Not been cycling in urban areas more than a couple of days but already its a minefield. And the roads are worse - lanes appearing then disappearing with no warning.


----------



## mjr (31 Aug 2018)

Mrklaw said:


> I find it all a bit confusing. Riding from Slough station there are some areas with the shared space sign, and pedestrian crossings with the combined 'person + bike' green man. But then there are long sections with no signs, but the crossings still have the bike on them - so are they shared pavement? Not been cycling in urban areas more than a couple of days but already its a minefield. And the roads are worse - lanes appearing then disappearing with no warning.


Road lanes do that. Motorists have to deal with it too, but the ones that affect them worse get fixed sooner with arrows and shoot because they destroy and kill more other things/people when they crash.

The unsigned sections... I think if there's no cycle symbol on the ground or a sign for some minimum distance (400m sounds familiar), then strictly speaking legally you should regard it as reverted to a footway, but unless you passed a "CYCLISTS REJOIN CARRIAGEWAY" or a red-edged no-cycling sign (current) or (old and obsolete) "END OF ROUTE" or even (very old, 1980s) "End" under a blue circle cycle sign, then I think you've a legal defence. And if there's then a walking+cycling crossing, it's probably a council mistake or maintenance failure (to replace lost signs or markings) anyway.


----------



## Slick (1 Sep 2018)

Mrklaw said:


> I find it all a bit confusing. Riding from Slough station there are some areas with the shared space sign, and pedestrian crossings with the combined 'person + bike' green man. But then there are long sections with no signs, but the crossings still have the bike on them - so are they shared pavement? Not been cycling in urban areas more than a couple of days but already its a minefield. And the roads are worse - lanes appearing then disappearing with no warning.


I have the same issue, but for the short time I'm on the pavement it will be forever my defence if I was ever challenged.


----------



## galaxy (2 Sep 2018)

Its the typical common sense prevails, theres no definite answer. Theres times its right and times when its wrong.


----------



## Slick (2 Sep 2018)

It's not new but probably still pertinent.


View: https://youtu.be/-FzOPByTgPA


----------



## nickr (3 Sep 2018)

There is a new cycle track in Kingston. Pedestrians are always on it making it almost useless. I never comment as I pass them. This is the price we pay for ignorant cyclists using the pavement, it's payback time.


----------



## mjr (3 Sep 2018)

nickr said:


> There is a new cycle track in Kingston. Pedestrians are always on it making it almost useless. I never comment as I pass them. This is the price we pay for ignorant cyclists using the pavement, it's payback time.


No, it's the price we pay for electing car-crazed and cheapskate councils who won't build cycle tracks to proper standards, so they look indistinguishable from footpaths by the casual walker.


----------



## MontyVeda (3 Sep 2018)

mjr said:


> No, it's the price we pay for electing car-crazed and cheapskate councils who won't build cycle tracks to proper standards, so they look indistinguishable from footpaths by the casual walker.


Some of the cycle lanes up here are bright red and as such are completely distinguishable from the footpath alongside... the peds think it's a red carpet laid out just for them


----------



## mjr (3 Sep 2018)

MontyVeda said:


> Some of the cycle lanes up here are bright red and as such are completely distinguishable from the footpath alongside... the peds think it's a red carpet laid out just for them


Not my experience elsewhere but I'd bet that's not the case in Kingston anyway


----------



## theclaud (3 Sep 2018)

mjr said:


> No, it's the price we pay for electing car-crazed and cheapskate councils who won't build cycle tracks to proper standards, so they look indistinguishable from footpaths by the casual walker.


My main problem with cycle tracks is that it's just more urban space from which pedestrians are excluded. I know I'm swimming against the tide with this one, and every time I arrive in London there's a new proliferation of kerbs, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why pedestrians should accede to this land-grab, even if it is what a lot of cyclists seem to want.


----------



## Mrklaw (3 Sep 2018)

theclaud said:


> My main problem with cycle tracks is that it's just more urban space from which pedestrians are excluded. I know I'm swimming against the tide with this one, and every time I arrive in London there's a new proliferation of kerbs, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why pedestrians should accede to this land-grab, even if it is what a lot of cyclists seem to want.



Distribution should be based on available surface area between buildings, combined with how much traffic of each type is to be accommodated. 

Eg Oxford street - tons of pedestrians - just pave the lot of it and leave them to it. Too many people to even bother with buses or bikes
Small side street with hardly any foot traffic, consider a narrow pavement and separate cycle lane. If you have a city with multiple roads in close proximity you can turn some of them one-way to free up space for cycle lanes.


----------



## theclaud (3 Sep 2018)

Mrklaw said:


> Distribution should be based on available surface area between buildings, combined with how much traffic of each type is to be accommodated.


And they say romance is dead.


----------



## mjr (3 Sep 2018)

theclaud said:


> My main problem with cycle tracks is that it's just more urban space from which pedestrians are excluded. I know I'm swimming against the tide with this one, and every time I arrive in London there's a new proliferation of kerbs, but I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why pedestrians should accede to this land-grab, even if it is what a lot of cyclists seem to want.


They don't need to because there is no further land-grab from pedestrians overall. Most of London's good tracks have been taken from the carriageway rather than the footway. For example (Camera angles aren't exact but count the paving slabs etc):

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEw0lyTuLAk


----------



## snorri (3 Sep 2018)

theclaud said:


> And they say romance is dead.


At least you managed to say something, I was left speechless.

.


----------



## Slick (3 Sep 2018)

I passed at least 6 different cyclists on the pavement this morning and I thought of this thread. I really couldn't see any problem with what they were doing and there was certainly no pedestrians at risk as they looked like they were moving reasonably slowly with little or no ped traffic. I then saw another cyclist come from a busy road join the road I was on and he immediately joined the pavement, which did get me wondering why. As a bus squeezed by me for no apparent reason filling my lungs with horrible fumes, I remembered that it's only a matter of weeks since a cyclist was killed on this road so I can fully understand why.


----------



## snorri (10 Sep 2018)

The roads authority in a nearby town has come up with some proposals for......'improved walking and cycling facilities and saying plans have been developed to improve road safety and support active travel.'
Which sounds exciting until we read they propose installing lots of drop kerbs in order to encourage pavement cycling which they intend to have legalised, and very little else.


----------



## mjr (10 Sep 2018)

snorri said:


> The roads authority in a nearby town has come up with some proposals for......'improved walking and cycling facilities and saying plans have been developed to improve road safety and support active travel.'
> Which sounds exciting until we read they propose installing lots of drop kerbs in order to encourage pavement cycling which they intend to have legalised, and very little else.


Please comment and add your voice to those telling them that actual building work is needed, as cycleways need to be wider and smoother than most current footways, with better junction layouts, directing them to whatever guides you like: IAN 195/16, London Cycling Design Standards, heck, even Sustrans's Design Handbook no longer encourages pavement cycling. It's a 1990s mistake.


----------



## confusedcyclist (16 Jan 2019)

I have taken to riding a particular stretch of pavement on my commute home. It follows a long tiring climb out of a valley, the incline decreases slightly at the particular section, but progress is still slow, it is impossible keep pace with traffic. It is very narrow in parts with sharp blind bends. Traffic is constant at peak hours and it has a 50mph limit, but some still exceed that. Most drivers are flying recklessly around the blind bends without regard for who might be out of sight around the corner, or coming in the opposite direction in the middle of the road. After a couple of very close overtakes on the bends, including one occasion with an oncoming cyclist. Myself and him being tailgated by loons attempting to overtake us both at the same time as we converged at the bed in the narrow road. Truly brown pants moment for all involved.... mercifully one of the drivers had the sense to abort the overtake at the Nth hour and hung back. I have since quit riding on that road for fear of the worst eventually happening there.

Previously I was adamant about never riding on pavements and had somewhat a condescending attitude towards pavement riders, but now I have proudly joined ranks (for this small section of road) for fear of being squashed like a bug. In the summer I'm able to avoid the road by taking a piece of off-road track, but it's unlit and next to impassible in the winter due to boggy conditions so I'm forced to stick to the road, there are no reasonable alternative routes without massively extending my already lengthy 10 mile route, or taking the dreaded Wakefield Road which is arguably worse, that would also mean giving up on the 4 or so miles of relative safety on the Leeds-Bradford Cycle Superhighway.


----------



## Alwaysbroken (16 Jan 2019)

Tolerance 
Common sense 
Professional judgement 

All becoming less common, too much signage, legislation and rules help enforce the great opinionated.

So I have a 40 mph stretch of road which is very busy and not wide enough to overtake pedalbikes. There is pavement of sorts on one side which is in poor condition and overgrown, but it has been signposted as dual use for cycles and pedestrians.
Cars abuse all cycles who don’t use the path.

My take on the scenario is:-

If I’m on a family plod I’ll use the path but I always stop and allow pedestrians priority.
If I’m on my road bike & doing 25mph + I’ll use the road.

But in rush hour when I’m stuck behind a massive queue because a Lycra clad numpty is struggling to maintain 10mph on the road I think they should get off their “it’s my right” mindset & get on the path.

If on a path, on a bike represent well & give total priority to pedestrians, if on busy 30mph roads I tend to wave congested traffic past me, I don’t need 5 feet to pass my ass isn’t that wide yet.

I have full licence for trucks, cars, motorcycles and I walk if I have too, I always try to keep traffic flowing when driving & flash congested queues out to free up the road.

My biggest bug bear with cycles is light controlled crossings!!! The number of riders that press the button when the road is not busy in Bristol is insane! Sat at a red light for nothing when the bike is long gone does press my buttons.

There are crap drivers and crap cyclists, that won’t ever change, but the more rights & rules put in place, the more everybody feels they own their bit of space.

Pavement, road, grass or mud, I’ll ride on all of it, which ever makes sense, is most practical & im not detrimentally affecting others.

Live and let live brother


----------



## screenman (16 Jan 2019)

Trouble is we are often tarred with the same brush as this lot, how they have just discovered it as it has been going on in other towns I visit for years.

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/residents-anger-gang-30-kids-2426258


----------



## Alwaysbroken (16 Jan 2019)

screenman said:


> Trouble is we are often tarred with the same brush as this lot, how they have just discovered it as it has been going on in other towns I visit for years.
> 
> https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/lincoln-news/residents-anger-gang-30-kids-2426258



I drive through centre of Bristol regularly on the evening and there are genuinely loads of adult even middle aged cyclists riding on the roads in dark clothing with no lights? Almost like it’s a “thing”? 

We also have gangs of youths riding city streets deliberately disrupting traffic? 

There are loads of weirdo’s on the planet, I don’t see it reflects on “cyclists” or people who happen to ride bikes, they are simply idiots waiting for natural selection to occur.


----------



## mgs315 (16 Jan 2019)

Funnily enough I was also reminded of this thread today when out on the bike. I was in a cycle lane near New Cross (so just a painted line to be honest but as it was rush hour motorists were being mindful of the lane) when I came across some kid (probably early 20s but the kind that look like they don’t want to grow up any time soon) wheelieing a mountain bike on the pavement. He then continued to do so past a packed bus stop.

How on earth he didn’t hit anyone is almost as amazing as his stupidity.


----------



## screenman (16 Jan 2019)

Alwaysbroken said:


> I drive through centre of Bristol regularly on the evening and there are genuinely loads of adult even middle aged cyclists riding on the roads in dark clothing with no lights? Almost like it’s a “thing”?
> 
> We also have gangs of youths riding city streets deliberately disrupting traffic?
> 
> There are loads of weirdo’s on the planet, I don’t see it reflects on “cyclists” or people who happen to ride bikes, they are simply idiots waiting for natural selection to occur.



Now I 100% agree with you, trouble is many people do not see us that way and tar us all the same.


----------



## Alwaysbroken (16 Jan 2019)

screenman said:


> Now I 100% agree with you, trouble is many people do not see us that way and tar us all the same.



Ha ha, ignore the small minded, I’m not precious enough to give a flying monkeys what others think of me as long as I live by my own decent morrals I’m entirely happy to let the uneducated miss-judge me without a care 

My neighbor hates us purely based on perception, my lads all play rugby, they used to ride mx bikes and when I moved in to the house I had a Staffie (long passed now ) based on that we must therefore be bad people. While they sit sedentary in their conservatory getting stoned.

Life’s to short, I’m a “cyclist” but there’s lots of other things I probably do to p155 folk off


----------



## screenman (16 Jan 2019)

I have been a cyclist for well over 50 years, anti cyclists are not a worry unless they are aiming something heavy at me.


----------



## HLaB (16 Jan 2019)

Most pavement cyclists are there because a perceived fear or bad street layouts (one ways/ no clear permeable network) and I understand that. I can't understand pavement cyclists in central Cambridge though; you've got a massive critical mass on the road including a lot of women and young children, yet you get a middle aged man cycling down the footway on a two way street


----------



## tom73 (16 Jan 2019)

I see you point but some can’t have it both ways. Someone down our street cycles 1/2 way up the street then rest of the way to work on pavement. Coming home the some pavement all the way till top of the street then free wheels in the middle of the rd all way at speed down hill with no hands. Even though the street is cut in two by a side rd via a blind bend. Which cars offen drive round at speed.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2019)

tom73 said:


> [...] free wheels in the middle of the rd all way at speed down hill with no hands. Even though the street is cut in two by a side rd via a blind bend. Which cars offen drive round at speed.


----------



## C R (17 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> View attachment 447490


That's only the case if they haven't reproduced yet.


----------



## mjr (17 Jan 2019)

C R said:


> That's only the case if they haven't reproduced yet.


That's a common misconception, but death still prevents further reproduction, thereby reducing the probability of further genetic perpetuation, plus the lethal trait may have been passed on and kill its carriers in turn. You can't dodge Darwin.


----------



## overmind (19 Jan 2019)

I cycle on the pavement where necessary and I give way to pedestrians.

If I ever get a fine I will simply regard it as a retroactive live insurance premium. It will be the best value life insurance policy I ever bought.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Jan 2019)

Alwaysbroken said:


> Tolerance
> Common sense
> Professional judgement
> 
> ...



Hmmmmm


----------



## Moodyman (19 Jan 2019)

confusedcyclist said:


> I have taken to riding a particular stretch of pavement on my commute home. It follows a long tiring climb out of a valley, the incline decreases slightly at the particular section, but progress is still slow, it is impossible keep pace with traffic. It is very narrow in parts with sharp blind bends. Traffic is constant at peak hours and it has a 50mph limit, but some still exceed that. Most drivers are flying recklessly around the blind bends without regard for who might be out of sight around the corner, or coming in the opposite direction in the middle of the road. After a couple of very close overtakes on the bends, including one occasion with an oncoming cyclist. Myself and him being tailgated by loons attempting to overtake us both at the same time as we converged at the bed in the narrow road. Truly brown pants moment for all involved.... mercifully one of the drivers had the sense to abort the overtake at the Nth hour and hung back. I have since quit riding on that road for fear of the worst eventually happening there.
> 
> Previously I was adamant about never riding on pavements and had somewhat a condescending attitude towards pavement riders, but now I have proudly joined ranks (for this small section of road) for fear of being squashed like a bug. In the summer I'm able to avoid the road by taking a piece of off-road track, but it's unlit and next to impassible in the winter due to boggy conditions so I'm forced to stick to the road, there are no reasonable alternative routes without massively extending my already lengthy 10 mile route, or taking the dreaded Wakefield Road which is arguably worse, that would also mean giving up on the 4 or so miles of relative safety on the Leeds-Bradford Cycle Superhighway.



Tong Road by any chance?


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 Jan 2019)

Moodyman said:


> Tong Road by any chance?


No, worse, Back Lane!


----------



## al78 (22 Jan 2019)

HLaB said:


> Most pavement cyclists are there because a perceived fear or bad street layouts (one ways/ no clear permeable network) and I understand that. I can't understand pavement cyclists in central Cambridge though; you've got a massive critical mass on the road including a lot of women and young children, yet you get a middle aged man cycling down the footway on a two way street



Er, not necessarily, if some of them really were scared of using the road they wouldn't ride on the pavement at night in dark clothes and no lights, then emulate the smart-phone-dumb-users by darting into the road without bothering to look (yes I have seen this behaviour, fortunately not that common). The worst example was a kid who used the cycle route across the main roundabout between Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, which requires crossing the traffic flow twice (like the pedestrians have too), but he just went straight across without looking, forcing me to brake on the opposite side of the roundabout. He was lucky it was me on a bike and not a driver that hadn't seen his earlier antics and wasn't fully observant.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2019)

I was cycling on the pavement the other day and a pedestrian, having seen me, felt the need to press themselves flat against the wall to allow me to pass... the pavement was a good eight feet wide so plenty of room for them (and me) to carry on as normal, but no... they went for the drama.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Jan 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> I was cycling on the pavement the other day and a pedestrian, having seen me, felt the need to press themselves flat against the wall to allow me to pass... the pavement was a good eight feet wide so plenty of room for them (and me) to carry on as normal, but no... they went for the drama.


Sorry about that


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> I was cycling on the pavement the other day and a pedestrian, having seen me, felt the need to press themselves flat against the wall to allow me to pass... the pavement was a good eight feet wide so plenty of room for them (and me) to carry on as normal, but no... they went for the drama.


I seem to be getting that more and more too  Has there been a specific thing in the press recently to make walkers more fearful of cyclists on cycleways and back roads?

Still not had one as bad as the guy a few years ago who threw the woman he was walking with into the hedge!


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2019)

al78 said:


> The worst example was a kid who used the cycle route across the main roundabout between Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, which requires crossing the traffic flow twice (like the pedestrians have too), but he just went straight across without looking, forcing me to brake on the opposite side of the roundabout.


I don't understand this. Firstly, what do you mean "crossing the traffic flow twice"? Isn't the cycle route traffic flow to you?

Secondly, do you mean to say that some parts of the UK are still building cycle route crossings that don't have priority? I'm shocked, I tell you(!)


----------



## rogerzilla (22 Jan 2019)

Round here there are three apparent reasons people cycle on pavements:

- fear of traffic (and never having learned to cope with it)
- no lights
- general assumption that it's ok because in some places there are blue signs (cyclepaths blur the boundaries; I can show you paths where there is no segregation, no increased path width and in fact nothing to upgrade the path from a pavement other than a little blue sign). If it's safe to ride where there's a blue sign, surely it's safe to ride on any pavement?


----------



## HLaB (22 Jan 2019)

al78 said:


> Er, not necessarily, if some of them really were scared of using the road they wouldn't ride on the pavement at night in dark clothes and no lights, then emulate the smart-phone-dumb-users by darting into the road without bothering to look (yes I have seen this behaviour, fortunately not that common). The worst example was a kid who used the cycle route across the main roundabout between Horsham and Broadbridge Heath, which requires crossing the traffic flow twice (like the pedestrians have too), but he just went straight across without looking, forcing me to brake on the opposite side of the roundabout. He was lucky it was me on a bike and not a driver that hadn't seen his earlier antics and wasn't fully observant.


Yip those are the ones I can't understand Cambridge is full of them :-/


----------



## classic33 (22 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> I don't understand this. Firstly, what do you mean "crossing the traffic flow twice"? Isn't the cycle route traffic flow to you?
> 
> Secondly, do you mean to say that some parts of the UK are still building cycle route crossings that don't have priority? I'm shocked, I tell you(!)


The clue is in the names, blurred over time, as more seek to justify their cycling on them on what is legally a road vehicle. Footpath/pedestrian crossing.

Would the same stance be taken if the vehicle in question had an internal combustion engine and two wheels?


----------



## Alan O (23 Jan 2019)

mjr said:


> That's a common misconception, but death still prevents further reproduction, thereby reducing the probability of further genetic perpetuation, plus the lethal trait may have been passed on and kill its carriers in turn. You can't dodge Darwin.


Also, parents (and even grandparents) helping to take care of offspring are improving the chances of their shared DNA surviving, so earlier deaths even after reproductive age can expose surviving offspring to further selective pressure.


----------



## mickle (23 Jan 2019)

Alan O said:


> Also, parents (and even grandparents) helping to take care of offspring are improving the chances of their shared DNA surviving, so earlier deaths even after reproductive age can expose surviving offspring to further selective pressure.



Professor Alice Roberts informed me recently, via the wonder of television, that grand parent child care is why humans evolved to have such long lifespans.


----------



## Sixmile (30 Jan 2019)

I was out on my lunch break there and I was stopped by a woman with a microphone and a fella with a professional camera rig. 'Em sir, can I ask you some questions about cycling on the road?'. In total, they asked 10 questions and one of them being 'Can cyclists cycle on the footpath?'. In exceptional circumstances but generally no, probably wasn't the answer that they wanted.


----------



## Happy69 (30 Jan 2019)

I was just coming out of my front garden when a cyclist nearly hit me as he was on the pavement, luckily neither of us were injured but I did get to ask him about his dahon tho


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

It is one of the great contradictions of car culture.

Cycle on the pavement and you will be called reckless. Paint a white lime on another pavement, same dimensions running parallel to the road you are cycling on, and motorists will tell you to get on the obligatory cycle path. 

Cycling on the pavement is both reckless and obligatory at the same time, like some kind of entangled quantum superposition.


----------



## Arjimlad (30 Jan 2019)

Doesn't help when the Council signpost a narrow busy shared-use pavement as a "Cycle Track" - requires giving way at multiple sideroads, negotiating pushchairs, dog leads, children etc. Not as if there wouldn't be room for a real "cycle track" here, is it ?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Jan 2019)

The pavement on the left here is barely wider than my handlebars but that didn't stop the council reclassifying it as a shared facility for cyclists and pedestrians. A wee blue sign magically makes it safe!

Not that they could afford to remove an inch of those four lanes of road from the cars, oh no.


----------



## Milkfloat (30 Jan 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> Doesn't help when the Council signpost a narrow busy shared-use pavement as a "Cycle Track" - requires giving way at multiple sideroads, negotiating pushchairs, dog leads, children etc. Not as if there wouldn't be room for a real "cycle track" here, is it ?
> 
> View attachment 449779



I see that as the cars giving way to the bikes. This is my nearest piece of quality National Cycles network. Unfortunately it is designed for owls with the ability to rotate their heads at least 270 degrees. Me, I ride on the road and screw the drivers. 







On a plus note, they just spent an absolute fortune on the footpaths, so they can divert cyclists out of the way of a pinch point with no easy way to rejoin the road. It would have been significantly better and cheaper to just remove the pinch point..


----------



## tom73 (30 Jan 2019)

@Arjimlad we've a few like that round here too our powers that be solution to side roads is cyclist re join road signs then multiple cyclist re join signs. By the time you've got on , off , on ,off may as well use the road. They also make use of signs so small you never see them so no-one ever users them in the 1st place. We even have some signed as routes that take you miles out the way so they get given a miss too. But still they can go around telling everyone they are doing something. Bless them


----------



## Arjimlad (30 Jan 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> I see that as the cars giving way to the bikes. This is my nearest piece of quality National Cycles network. Unfortunately it is designed for owls with the ability to rotate their heads at least 270 degrees. Me, I ride on the road and screw the drivers.
> View attachment 449795
> 
> 
> ...



Sadly not, there are faded give way markings on the pavement. Pinch point in your second photo is a pedestrian refuge for those wanting to cross over. They could perhaps have sacrificed a little more pavement to alleviate things ?


----------



## Milkfloat (30 Jan 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> Sadly not, there are faded give way markings on the pavement. Pinch point in your second photo is a pedestrian refuge for those wanting to cross over. They could perhaps have sacrificed a little more pavement to alleviate things ?



Indeed, they would have been better not extending the pavement, getting rid of the refuge and getting pedestrians to use the Toucan crossing 100m further up the road. Even better, make the speed limit 20mph and peds can cross wherever they like.


----------



## Arjimlad (30 Jan 2019)

tom73 said:


> @Arjimlad we've a few like that round here too our powers that be solution to side roads is cyclist re join road signs then multiple cyclist re join signs. By the time you've got on , off , on ,off may as well use the road. They also make use of signs so small you never see them so no-one ever users them in the 1st place. We even have some signed as routes that take you miles out the way so they get given a miss too. But still they can go around telling everyone they are doing something. Bless them



I was following an unfamiliar route in Hampshire in September and my poor Wahoo kept sending me up and down, from side to side of the road as Cyclestreets had plotted the route on the shared-use pavement. It was utter cack. Yet the road was quite narrow and drivers clearly expected me to bimble along, waiting at every side road, and crossing over to the opposite side of the road when the SUP ran out. I was mighty glad to get off those roads.


----------



## Kempstonian (30 Jan 2019)

Yesterday I took my car in for repair at 8am. As it was freezing cold and a bit icy, I decided that a two mile walk home might do me more good. My route took me past a local school and several kids were making their way in on bikes. 
Now at that time of the morning the roads are busy with people going to work, so I don't really blame the kids for using the (reasonably wide) pavements around here... but a couple of times bike riders flew past me and I never heard them coming. 
It would have been so much better if they had a bell fitted, so they could just give a little warning that they were approaching, but bells on kids' bikes seem to be a thing of the past these days. On a narrower pavement an accident could easily have occurred.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 Jan 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> Yesterday I took my car in for repair at 8am. As it was freezing cold and a bit icy, I decided that a two mile walk home might do me more good. My route took me past a local school and several kids were making their way in on bikes.
> Now at that time of the morning the roads are busy with people going to work, so I don't really blame the kids for using the (reasonably wide) pavements around here... but a couple of times bike riders flew past me and I never heard them coming.
> It would have been so much better if they had a bell fitted, so they could just give a little warning that they were approaching, but bells on kids' bikes seem to be a thing of the past these days. On a narrower pavement an accident could easily have occurred.


You're aware that cyclists were using the path and you're aware that bicycles are mostly silent. I don't get why they have to make you aware when you're clearly already aware of them.


----------



## Kempstonian (30 Jan 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> You're aware that cyclists were using the path and you're aware that bicycles are mostly silent. I don't get why they have to make you aware when you're clearly already aware of them.


I wasn't aware until one came whizzing past me! Then I spent half my time looking over my shoulder in case another one came along. The reason they should make pedestrians aware is that they are on a pedestrian footpath and some pedestrians, if preoccupied, might accidentally step into their way. That wouldn't be good for either party. Also a quick ping on a bike bell would be the considerate thing to do and it takes very little effort (and stops cyclists getting a bad name maybe).


----------



## theclaud (30 Jan 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> Cycling on the pavement is both reckless and obligatory at the same time, like some kind of entangled quantum superposition.


If you don't mind I'm probably going to use that, word for word, next time I get into a discussion on the matter. It's a bit more sophisticated than my last contribution on that score, which consisted of the words 'Fark off yourself' or similar.


----------



## mjr (30 Jan 2019)

Happy69 said:


> I was just coming out of my front garden when a cyclist nearly hit me as he was on the pavement, luckily neither of us were injured but I did get to ask him about his dahon tho


You should look before leaving your front garden. A pavement cyclist might hurt but the growing number of pavement motorists could easily kill 

Edit: no, you shouldn't need to. So you should flame your councillors and MPs until they sort the farking road out so that everyone's OK with cycling along it. Removing the most daffodil motorists would be a start.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (30 Jan 2019)

theclaud said:


> If you don't mind I'm probably going to use that, word for word, next time I get into a discussion on the matter. It's a bit more sophisticated than my last contribution on that score, which consisted of the words 'Fark off yourself' or similar.



Go for it.


----------



## MontyVeda (31 Jan 2019)

Kempstonian said:


> I wasn't aware until one came whizzing past me! Then I spent half my time looking over my shoulder in case another one came along. The reason they should make pedestrians aware is that they are on a pedestrian footpath and some pedestrians, if preoccupied, might accidentally step into their way. That wouldn't be good for either party. Also a quick ping on a bike bell would be the considerate thing to do and it takes very little effort (and stops cyclists getting a bad name maybe).


Your initial description suggests you were aware of the cyclist on the pavement, then one whizzed past you.


----------



## Kempstonian (1 Feb 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> Your initial description suggests you were aware of the cyclist on the pavement, then one whizzed past you.


No, I was aware of kids riding bikes to school but not all of them were on the pavements and not all were on my side of the road. The first one who passed me was just before a T junction and I could see other bikes on the road we were approaching. All this happened quite close to the school.


----------



## HLaB (1 Feb 2019)

Milkfloat said:


> Indeed, they would have been better not extending the pavement, getting rid of the refuge and getting pedestrians to use the Toucan crossing 100m further up the road. Even better, make the speed limit 20mph and peds can cross wherever they like.


I wouldn't be so sure. A narrower footway = wider carriageway = faster cars and a wider and forcing folk to use a crossing which might not be on their desire line isnt desirable or safe. Folk don't naturally want to go 100m out of their way then a 100m back to get where they were wanting to in the first place they end up dashing across a potentially wider and faster road. More timid potential cyclists are more likely to be encouraged by off road infrastructure too and the footway needs to be wider to accommodate that. Personally I prefer to be on a road with plenty of room (a wider carriageway without pinch points) but that's selfish of me  You're last suggestion (20mph and letting folk cross where they want) is spot on though


----------



## Ming the Merciless (2 Feb 2019)

Or indeed for such a narrow road make it one way for vehicles and claim the other lanes for bikes and pedestrians.


----------



## lazybloke (8 Feb 2019)

MontyVeda said:


> Your initial description suggests you were aware of the cyclist on the pavement, then one whizzed past you.


Next time I watch a horror film, how stupid I will be if it makes me jump...?


----------



## CXRAndy (9 Feb 2019)

Ive no issues with using a bike on a path with pedestrians as well. BUT, now the rider has to take extra care to not bump into anyone and ride at a much reduced speed to protect the pedestrian. Dont force yourself by wait for gaps. 

Much the same respect a cyclist expects from vehicle users on the road


----------



## MontyVeda (9 Feb 2019)

lazybloke said:


> Next time I watch a horror film, how stupid I will be if it makes me jump...?


then you can start a thread calling out the inconsiderate director for making you jump... I'll look forward to that


----------



## mjr (9 Feb 2019)

CXRAndy said:


> Dont force yourself by wait for gaps.


Pardon?


----------



## classic33 (9 Feb 2019)

mjr said:


> Pardon?


Those on foot are now the vunerable ones, having to avoid vehicles on the paths.


----------



## mjr (9 Feb 2019)

classic33 said:


> Those on foot are now the vunerable ones, having to avoid vehicles on the paths.


That's never what he meant to write.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Feb 2019)

mjr said:


> Pardon?



I think there's a comma missing : Don't force yourself by, wait for gaps.


----------



## GaGa (20 Mar 2019)

simongt said:


> This should start a few views / opinions flying - !
> In the fair city of Norwich, on the basis that it's no different from any other city / town in this respect, more cycle users seem to ride the pavements than the roads. There's no point in asking them why; you'll just get a load of abuse. I know, I've tried.
> So, why do they do it - ? Is it simply because they can get away with it and it saves them having to stop or slow down for mundane things like traffic signs - ? It's also common to see them cycling along the pavement with a cycle lane on the road right beside them - !
> If they come across pedestrians, either solo or with prams, disability frames or whatever who have the temerity to also be using the same bit of pavement, the pedestrian is expected to get out of the cycle users way and they usually do. Any comment or reaction from said pedestrian is invariably greeted with abuse.
> Thoughts on the matter folks - !


You couldn't cycle on the pavements around here, too many cars parked on them. Pedestrians,in particular those pushing prams, have step onto the road to avoid them. There was a plan to fine drivers for parking on the pavement but if all cars were forced to park on the road we'd have total grid lock.


----------



## mjr (20 Mar 2019)

GaGa said:


> You couldn't cycle on the pavements around here, too many cars parked on them. Pedestrians,in particular those pushing prams, have step onto the road to avoid them. There was a plan to fine drivers for parking on the pavement but if all cars were forced to park on the road we'd have total grid lock.


Except we wouldn't because obstructing the highway is a tow-away offence, so it'd soon sort it itself out. In the short term, expect lots of whining from motorists who have bought more vehicles than they can store on their own land and either won't pay for legal storage or won't walk to/from it. It would be best to do it just after the borough/district elections (many of which are 2nd May), so they'll have 3 years to experience the benefit before being able to kick out councillors in retribution.


----------

