# On/off road/pavement cycling



## Sandra6 (29 Jun 2012)

Apologies if this has been done before, but I'm curious as to others' opinions on the practice of hopping from road to path - you know to beat the lights or avoid sitting in traffic. 
Is it a perfectly acceptable way to keep moving or an annoying inconsistency of cycling? 
I'm torn. 
For the most part it irrationally irritates me, but now and again I do it myself. I cycle on the pavement to avoid cobbled roads and when in town I cycle down the path and use the pedestrian crossing before joining the road again so that I don't have to go all the way round the one-way system. 
If I saw me I'd probably want to slap me.


----------



## cd365 (29 Jun 2012)

I personally never cycle on the pavement


----------



## gaz (29 Jun 2012)

I do it sometimes at vauxhall (going towards stockwell). I see it fine to do here as I enter via a dropped kerb or via a side road, and it's a shared use path.
As long as you do it legally and safely, there isn't a problem.


----------



## akb (29 Jun 2012)

If there is a road and pavement next to each other, my choice would be to use the road, adhering to the highway code by stopping at lights etc etc. If you feel you need to mount the pavement to save some time, then you should be leaving slightly earlier, IMHO of course!


----------



## lulubel (29 Jun 2012)

I do it on my MTB if it provides a means to get past stationary traffic, but ONLY if there aren't any legitimate users of the pavement (ie pedestrians) who will be affected by me using it. I don't go up and down kerbs on my road bike.


----------



## cyberknight (29 Jun 2012)

If they are adults i ask pavements cyclists if there mum does not allow them to ride on the road.

the only time i ride on a pavement is a shared path/cycle path .


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Jun 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> Apologies if this has been done before, but I'm curious as to others' opinions on the practice of hopping from road to path - you know to beat the lights or avoid sitting in traffic.
> Is it a perfectly acceptable way to keep moving or an annoying inconsistency of cycling?
> I'm torn.
> *For the most part it irrationally irritates me, but now and again I do it myself*. I cycle on the pavement to avoid cobbled roads and when in town I cycle down the path and use the pedestrian crossing before joining the road again so that I don't have to go all the way round the one-way system.
> If I saw me I'd probably want to slap me.


 
Fear not. You are in the same boat as many of us. That is an honest admission.

I dislike it when others do it, but I've always seen Oxford Street as fair game. In fact Oxford Street and quite a few other parts of Central London. 

I taught my children not to do it and I vever do it when they're with me. They know I'm a hypocrite, but I don't want to be brazen about it. 

I see pavement use on Oxford Street and 'Nearside Filtering Plus'. The same only more so.

The only time when I get very moral about it is on my road bike with its delicate cycleparts. Is that a correct use of the word 'moral'?


----------



## sidevalve (29 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Fear not. You are in the same boat as many of us. That is an honest admission.
> 
> I dislike it when others do it, but I've always seen Oxford Street as fair game. In fact Oxford Street and quite a few other parts of Central London.
> 
> ...


 By "delicate" do you mean it's too delicate to use on the road !? If so it's not really a road bike is it, it's a track bike. Which is a bit sad really as even the hottest supercar as loved by Clarkson can still be used around town, so it sort of defeats it's own object.
As for the OP, I often use the pavement but I just hop off the bike and walk, then nobody seems to mind and it only adds a few seconds to the journey.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Jun 2012)

sidevalve said:


> By "delicate" do you mean it's too delicate to use on the road !? If so it's not really a road bike is it, it's a track bike. Which is a bit sad really as even the hottest supercar as loved by Clarkson can still be used around town, so it sort of defeats it's own object.
> As for the OP, I often use the pavement but I just hop off the bike and walk, then nobody seems to mind and it only adds a few seconds to the journey.


 
Tee Hee.... I was kidding. The implication in my last paragraph was that I take a very moral line on pavement riding when it would involve hopping my road bike up and down kerbs, but that I adopt a different (and more flexible) moral approach when on a hardtail MTB. 

By definition this is not a moral line and yet the language I was using suggested it was a moral response. I found a hint of humour in the clearly dichotomic apposition of the two notions.

I'll get my coat.

And ride off across the pavement.

On a hardtail.

Giggling.


----------



## 4F (29 Jun 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> Apologies if this has been done before, but I'm curious as to others' opinions on the practice of hopping from road to path - you know to beat the lights or avoid sitting in traffic.
> Is it a perfectly acceptable way to keep moving or an annoying inconsistency of cycling?
> I'm torn.
> For the most part it irrationally irritates me, but now and again I do it myself. I cycle on the pavement to avoid cobbled roads and when in town I cycle down the path and use the pedestrian crossing before joining the road again so that I don't have to go all the way round the one-way system.
> If I saw me I'd probably want to slap me.


 
I am traffic and therefore use the road. As there is not a smilie for a slap please accept this instead


----------



## sidevalve (29 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Tee Hee.... I was kidding. The implication in my last paragraph was that I take a very moral line on pavement riding when it would involve hopping my road bike up and down kerbs, but that I adopt a different (and more flexible) moral approach when on a hardtail MTB.
> 
> By definition this is not a moral line and yet the language I was using suggested it was a moral response. I found a hint of humour in the clearly dichotomic apposition of the two notions.
> 
> ...


 Thank god for that ! I was beginning to think we'd pushed the boudaries a bit too far !
However for a real question, when did this riding on the pavement thing begin ? I mean "when I were a lad", [sorry], well once you were above about six you rode on the road, and yes there WERE a lot of cars about then, as many of us will be able to confirm [with none of the "traffic calming" stuff we seem to have now, for what it's worth]. City centres were cram full and you took your chances, nor did you burst into tears every time some gonk made you brake or cut you up, somehow we just got on with it.


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Jun 2012)

I think cycling on the pavement, either as a pseudo-legal way to beat a traffic light, or as a way to avoid 'scary' traffic, is suicidal.

Cyclists that constantly move in and out of traffic are less visible, unpredictable and therefore more likely to be hit.

If I ever have to use the pavement, I get off and walk the bike - and that's here in Montgomery County, MD, where cycling on the sidewalk is legal. I just think it's asking for trouble to cycle on the pavement.


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Jun 2012)

Pavements are for pedestrians. Get off and walk if you need to use one.


----------



## gambatte (29 Jun 2012)

I ride on the road. I dislike cyclists, apart from kids, on the pavement.
That said, I believe the majority of drivers have lost any moral argument due to the amount of pavement parking and consequent obstructions


----------



## Sandra6 (29 Jun 2012)

Thanks for the slap 4F -and the honest replies, everyone. 
There are only a couple of times when I do it and for the most part I'm happy on the road or cycle path. 
I spent years belligerently obstructing pavement cyclists with my pushchair so I always give way to pedestrians.


----------



## 4F (29 Jun 2012)

No problem Sandra, glad I could help


----------



## bluemint (29 Jun 2012)

gambatte said:


> I ride on the road. I dislike cyclists, apart from kids, on the pavement.
> That said, I believe the majority of drivers have lost any moral argument due to the amount of pavement parking and consequent obstructions


Or that hazard lights mysteriously mean 'I'll park where I damn well like'. Really annoys me that one.

The only time I'll pavement ride is when I'm going to Sainbury's to avoid having to turn right into a bike/ped shortcut. All of about 200yds. rarely anyone about and if there is, they get priority.

Otherwise, they're a menace on the pavement, the only 2 bike accidents I've seen have been on the pavement. The first was the immediate aftermath of a teenager going into the side of a car after cruising downhill over side roads and the other was a nasty collision between another lad into a teenage girl. That was when I used to get the bus...


----------



## derrick (29 Jun 2012)

Guilty,


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911832, member: 45"]Everyone does it here, and nobody dies.[/quote]

"Nobody" dies while riding on the pavement? Yeah, right! I suppose no one gets killed whilst riding against traffic either, nor do they get killed while filtering or while standing at red lights next to lorries. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

People do die while riding on the pavement. Most of them aren't actually on the pavement when they're killed - most often, they have just entered the roadway at an intersection or they're in a driveway when the collision happens:
http://bikinginla.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/9-year-old-cyclist-killed-in-anaheim/
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthrea...sh-Example-of-why-cyclists-are-safer-on-roads
http://www.news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=281439
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LhSAuLjSeY

But people are even killed while on the pavement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/u...ers-new-bike-lanes-after-accident-deaths.html
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/a...curb-kills-girl-5-playing-on-a-busy-side.html

The pavement is at least twice as dangerous for cyclists as the road, as Ken Kifer argues here:
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm
www.bicyclesafe.com (a US site) says: "*Don't ride on the sidewalk in the first place.* Crossing between sidewalks is a fairly dangerous maneuver. If you do it on the left-hand side of the street, you risk getting slammed as per the diagram. If you do it on the right-hand side of the street, you risk getting slammed by a car behind you that's turning right. Sidewalk riding also makes you vulnerable to cars pulling out of parking lots or driveways."

Few cyclists in Britain are killed while riding on the pavement because in Britain it's illegal to do so - and the police are better at fining pavement riders, so fewer cyclists are stupid enough to ride on it.

Ride on the road, where you can be seen. For cyclists, visibility = safety.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Jun 2012)

Mmmm....

Well I think if Satan were looking for a means of corrupting mankind, he could think of no better method than the tantalising prospect of riding on the pavement. It is the very definition of evil or something that sounds like that but makes more sense...

I hop kerbs between Paddington, Whitehall and EC2. It speeds my way through the city and brings amusement and entertainment.

I don't do it to jump traffic signals - those are easily hopped without leaving the carriageway although I rarely do so.

I hop kerbs and ride along short stretches of pavement to get past bus stacks (an Oxford Street speciality) and to avoid what I think look like traffic snarls that do not offer a safe filtering environment.

I think we might be in danger of taking a little too seriously this whole pavement thing.

There is a way of doing it with politeness and finesse.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Jun 2012)

On my commute to work I do sometimes use the pavement for a short stretch to avoid a busy road. It is however, a broad pavement that becomes a shared path after a few yards. I could use the park that goes parallel instead, but usually there are no pedestrians on that pavement because they are all walking through the park!
In town, or at junctions where I chicken out, I just dismount and push the bike.
If I'm in an area where I'm unsure of lanes/direction, I normally dismount and push the bike until I get my bearings.
In some areas, here, we do have broad pavements with hardly any pedestrians on them.
I have no qualms whatsoever in using them when the traffic gets too much for me


----------



## potsy (29 Jun 2012)

I've got no problem with people using them like Pat does, as long as they are sensible and keep the speed right down, it's the morons who stay at the same speed and do it purely to 'dodge' the lights that annoy me.


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911881, member: 45"]I said "Everyone does it here, and nobody dies." And that's correct.[/quote]

Then it's just a matter of time. Anyone who thinks his locality is somehow immune to pavement cycling deaths is living in fantasyland. I assure you - even in Somerset, people will be killed while riding on the sidewalk. If it hasn't happened yet, it will.

And cyclists do die in Somerset:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-11260488


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (29 Jun 2012)

I agree with Potsy, if you're cycling like a lunatic and you're endangering pedestrations, it's not okay but if you're just riding at a slow pace for a good reason, why not? There's no harm in it.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Jun 2012)

potsy said:


> I've got no problem with people using them like Pat does, as long as they are sensible and keep the speed right down.


Me? Speed? What speed?


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911916, member: 45"]You claim that cycling on the pavement is suicidal. Sorry, but that's just rubbish.[/quote]

Studies show that pavement cycling increases the risk of collision by a factor of between 2 and 12. That adjusts the lifetime risk of dying on a bicycle from 1 in 140 to as little as 1 in 11. If you like those odds, go right ahead and ride on the sidewalk. Yes, you will probably live to a ripe old age and die in your bed, so my characterization was somewhat hyperbolic. Sometimes a little hyperbole can come in handy when people insist on doing stupid things. I view anyone who is willing to reduce his odds of living by doing something as stupid and unnecessary as riding on the pavement (when there's a perfectly good and safe road right next to it) as 'suicidal' - and I think that saying that such a characterization is 'rubbish' only means you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## potsy (29 Jun 2012)

Mr Paul has recently moved to Somerset, No?
Think he's lost the will to live already


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (29 Jun 2012)

The police have never stopped me for riding on the pavement, they've only ever smiled and said hello.


----------



## junglegusset (29 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1911881, member: 45"]I said "Everyone does it here, and nobody dies." And that's correct.

It's not illegal over here...... [/quote]

It's illegal on quite a lot pavements on the UK though no? Or have I missed something? Rarely enforced for sure.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (29 Jun 2012)

Well, I'm a bit seasoned after months of giving up public transport, relying only on the bike. I can do my comfort routes (work, friends homes, local shops) entirely on the road, even at peak times.
But if there had not been, to start with, a way to reach my destinations without mixing with motorized traffic ( cycle lanes, parks, the odd pavement) I would surely not have started to commute by bike, it would have been to scary for me as a newbie then.
Now, I see sometimes the ones that have just started using my route: they take the pavement along the busy stretch, while I am normally on the road.
We all have to start somehow!


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (29 Jun 2012)

junglegusset said:


> It's illegal on quite a lot pavements on the UK though no? Or have I missed something? Rarely enforced for sure.


 
In the UK, you don't get prosecuted if you're under 16 - does that make it legal for under 16s or...?


----------



## classic33 (29 Jun 2012)

Could we liken cycling on the pavement to some of the driving seen.
On the roads we're the smaller, more vunerable vehicle. On the pavement, we're the largest, sometimes travelling at speed in excess of what those who use the footpaths consider to be unsafe/too fast.

Are we merely taking a problem elsewhere, where we become the larger, faster user.

Note, for the purpose of this post the term "we're" is used to describe pedal cycles.


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Jun 2012)

junglegusset said:


> It's illegal on quite a lot pavements on the UK though no? Or have I missed something? Rarely enforced for sure.


 
According to:
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
"The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is _section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act_, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he 'shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.' "

So, as I read it, unless you're a child under the age of criminal responsibility (10 in England and Wales), cycling on footpaths next to a road is illegal throughout the UK - even in Somerset. Cycling on footpaths away from the roadway may, as I understand it, be legal.

However, in 1999, then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:
“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

So if someone is scared of the road, I guess it's possible to make that argument in a court of law, LOL. But as well as being 'wussy' (as the Yanks say), it's a pretty funny defence, considering the fact that footpath-cycling is more dangerous than roadway cycling.

My 9 year-old daughter cycles on the road here in the US - just today, she rode with me on a 6-lane highway. When I asked her a minute ago what she thinks about sidewalk cycling, she opened her eyes wide and said "I think it's dangerous and they're kinda stupid for doing it."


----------



## MontyVeda (30 Jun 2012)

there's certain pavements around Lancaster on which I've always cycled as opposed to using the road. Yes it may have technically been illegal, but the pavements are wide with not a great deal of pedestrians. After 20+ years of using certain pavements alongside busy roads... the council has recently made them all shared use... so i was right all along.


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jun 2012)

Does anyone else find pedestrians don't understand shared use pavements?? 
We have a few cycle paths that are on the path, either painted green or with a white line, but pedestrians seem to think they can stand in the middle of them and clearly don't understand a cycle bell or even "excuse me". 
I always thought it was illegal to cycle on the pavement - apart from where it's marked for cycling - and my son at 14 was stopped by the police for doing exactly that and a stern letter was sent to me as a result!


----------



## GrasB (30 Jun 2012)

When I take to the pavement I almost always walk with my bike. Even shared cycle paths & in rural environments. I've found them to be more dangerous most of the time unless traveling at sub-10 mph speeds. It's not just pedestrians that cause problems, small animals do as well. Cats, squirrels, rabbits, hares, etc. perceive a pavement as a 'save' area to be on & as such are a lot less wary of things on them. Note I'm comparing a wide cycle path to a 60mph road here & in terms of safety the road wins! Most of the time you're better of being assertive on the roads than on a pavement be a cycle path or not.


----------



## Mugshot (30 Jun 2012)

GrasB said:


> It's not just pedestrians that cause problems, small animals do as well. Cats, squirrels, rabbits, hares, etc. perceive a pavement as a 'save' area to be on & as such are a lot less wary of things on them.


I live near to a lovely section of NCN 4, it's nowhere near the road, goes through fields and woodland and generally up hill and down dale. I encounter lots of wildlife on it, bunnies are a frequent sight, they soon scatter into the undergrowth, today I had a race with a cat and yesterday I had a race with two sheep, (for the record I beat the lot of them!) It's great.
Back on topic I don't use the pavement, but I can understand why people do, though I don't agree with the practice of using it to shave a couple of seconds off your personal best. I do however think it's more than a little harsh to suggest that someone is a wuss for using them if they feel less than confident on the road.


----------



## HovR (30 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I dislike it when others do it, but I've always seen Oxford Street as fair game. In fact Oxford Street and quite a few other parts of Central London.


 
You ride on the pavement around Oxford street? Last I was there, Oxford street pavement was so busy with peds that it would be impossible to safely cycle down it.


----------



## Sara_H (30 Jun 2012)

The occasions I've been known to pavement cycle are:

When cycling with my nine year old along busy roads. I usually cycle on the road, hm on pavement, but theres one stretch thats really dicey and I don't feel safe tryying to negotiate the road and keep an eye on him also.

Part of my route home from work. Single carriage way, crawling traffic both directions, cars trying to devide into two lanes for a RAB at the bottom, not enough room to filter on either side. Choice is to either sit in the queue or ride the pavement. I dont go this way anymore, it mekes me feel guilty.

In Sheffield there are lots of suddenly ending shared path's, so I quite often end up unintentionally riding on the pavement, but I dont think that counts!


----------



## Sandra6 (30 Jun 2012)

I agree wholeheartedly, but I do ring my bell, and say excuse me, and they turn round and stare at me and laugh when their dogs run in front of me snarling.
Now that's just not nice.


----------



## GrasB (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1912743, member: 45"]Have you experienced problems with small animals yourself then?[/quote]
Yes & I have the scars to match


----------



## the_mikey (1 Jul 2012)

When the pavement is a shared use cycle path and of a quality that makes cycling on the road seem crazy, I'll use it. There are lots of shared use paths that I think are not of the quality required of a shared use path, often too narrow and with a poor quality surface, it's not safe to share these with pedestrians.


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

the_mikey said:


> When the pavement is a shared use cycle path and of a quality that makes cycling on the road seem crazy, I'll use it.


 
I agree, though I've never seen one that meets that criterion yet. The dirty little secret about so-called 'bicycle facilities' (including shared use paths) is that every legitimate study that investigates them finds them more dangerous for cyclists than a standard road. Still, I'd love to find a bicycle facility that I could use.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Still, I'd love to find a bicycle facility that I could use.


I may have the wrong end of the stick and I realise that you're not currently in the UK, but have a look at some of these, they seem pretty usable to me.


----------



## Bobario (1 Jul 2012)

I only ride on the pavement if I feel it will be safer than the road, which is very rarely. If its empty I'll ride the bike and if its full of pedestrians I'll walk. I was once ordered to ride on the pavement by a very angry police officer, which confused me greatly. I was riding home when it was just going dark and I hadn't brought my lights. He was telling me to get off the road because I had no lights, but surely he was putting pedestrians in danger? It wasn't even fully dark, just dusk.



Sandra6 said:


> Does anyone else find pedestrians don't understand shared use pavements??
> We have a few cycle paths that are on the path, either painted green or with a white line, but pedestrians seem to think they can stand in the middle of them and clearly don't understand a cycle bell or even "excuse me".
> I always thought it was illegal to cycle on the pavement - apart from where it's marked for cycling - and my son at 14 was stopped by the police for doing exactly that and a stern letter was sent to me as a result!


 
In my opinion its the lines that seem to attract people. In my area there is a cyclepath and a footpath with a low wall in between. Most pedestrians seem to like walking along the cyclepath rather than the footpath. It then becomes a shared use path with the cycle lane marked with white lines. Again a lot of people go out of their way to walk right down the middle of the white lines, even though there are big white bicycles painted along it at regular intervals. Then there are the cockwombles who walk on one side of the cycle lane, with a dog on a long lead on the other side.


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I may have the wrong end of the stick and I realise that you're not currently in the UK, but have a look at some of these, they seem pretty usable to me.


 
As far as I can see, many of those are dangerously narrow and poorly-maintained dirt tracks covered in fallen leaves. I wouldn't go near any of them unless I had no other choice. I understand some folks will happily ride on anything, but how are those preferable to a nice wide tarmacked road? The only reason I can think of would be fear of traffic. I've never had that problem.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Jul 2012)

Sandra6 said:


> Does anyone else find pedestrians don't understand shared use pavements??
> ...


 
you mean the relentless meandering? not knowing which side to walk on? eagerly pointing towards a distant meadow just as I pass? and oh the not so retractable dog?

At the end of the day peds have a right to meander and if that's inconvenient then tough.



Bobario said:


> ...
> I was once ordered to ride on the pavement by a very angry police officer, which confused me greatly. I was riding home when it was just going dark and I hadn't brought my lights. He was telling me to get off the road because I had no lights, but surely he was putting pedestrians in danger? It wasn't even fully dark, just dusk.
> ...


 
I have to agree with the copper here... dusk will make you nigh on invisible.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> As far as I can see, many of those are dangerously narrow and poorly-maintained dirt tracks covered in fallen leaves. I wouldn't go near any of them unless I had no other choice. I understand some folks will happily ride on anything, but how are those preferable to a nice wide tarmacked road? The only reason I can think of would be fear of traffic. I've never had that problem.


Well, I can of course only speak for the one I've used which, as I'm sure you've guessed is the one I posted a picture of. Firstly I should point out that I am in no way afraid of riding in traffic, my use of NCN 4 is generally dependant on my mood that day and whether I've left home early enough for a more leisurely cruise , it is of course worth noting that I ride for several miles on the road before I get to the path.
How wide do you require your paths to be? Not the ones by the side of a road, the ones in the pictures I posted. They are wide enough to comfortably accommodate 3 bikes side by side, or a bike and a couple of peds, or a bike a ped and a dog.
The whole of the section I use regularly is well maintained and tarmaced (?) it is around 6 miles long but I turn off well before the end for home, so you could comfortably double that. As I live in the country I have fallen leaves and branches to contend with on the road, I don't however have diesel spills to contend with on the cycle path.
As to why I use it, well as I've already stated it is not from a fear of traffic, it's not the most direct route to work nor is it a superior riding surface to the road (although it's certainly no worse). It's quiet, it's relatively unused, it's not unusual to do the commute both to and from work and not see anybody else on the path. I do however see rabbits and lambs and calves and their mums and dads and so many different birds and nature Ian, if I'm on the road I may see some wildlife squished on the side but I'm also paying far more attention to approaching cars than I am to the horse looking over the gate.


Ian Cooper said:


> Still, I'd love to find a bicycle facility that I could use.


I see no reason why you "couldn't" use the facilities, although I think I can see why you wouldn't.


----------



## subway (1 Jul 2012)

Cycling on the road is suicide in Manchester I stick to cycle lanes as much as I can but cars just park in them and cycle lanes on the footpath are full of pedestrians who tut when you aproach. I have seen police cyclists on the pavement many times so if they use the pavement so will I .as long as you give way to pedestrians nobody seems to mind. I have troed to cycle on the road but I would like to live a bit longer. If the cars and wagons dont kill you the huge amounts of glass and rubbish like tin cans and wire will


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I see no reason why you "couldn't" use the facilities, although I think I can see why you wouldn't.


 
I can't, because I value my health. Narrow shingle paths covered in wet leaves make for falls and collisions, and I'm 50 and more brittle than I was at 20.


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

subway said:


> Cycling on the road is suicide in Manchester...


 
And yet all the legitimate studies show it's twice as safe as driving and safer than any of the cycling alternatives (pavement, shoulder, bike lane, bike path).

Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> I can't, because I value my health. Narrow shingle paths covered in wet leaves make for falls and collisions, and I'm 50 and more brittle than I was at 20.


I'm afraid that this post totally ignores the examples posted by User and the experience which I related to you.


----------



## snorri (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.


Can you back these statements up with some reliable data?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Why is it that so many people - including cyclists - equate cycling on the road as 'suicidal' when it's the single safest mode of personal transportation in existence? The only way you can be safer on the road than riding a bike is if you take a bus.


 
Maybe because some of us do not have your exceptional bike riding skills? I know that if I was a driver on a dual carriage way at rush hour, with the "cycling me" poodling along at modest speed, I would certainly swear at myself 
Why antagonize motorists if it's avoidable? There are perfectly good cycling facilities I can used in my area, might add a few minutes to my journey, so much more relaxing ride home when I'm tired from work.


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> I'm afraid that this post totally ignores the examples posted by User and the experience which I related to you.


 
There were three pages of posts in that link. You didn't direct me to your specific posts until later - you just said that 'some of these are usable'. Your own posts in the link showed shale paths with leaves strewn on them. As for User, I have him on ignore, presumably because I find him to be well entrenched in the fearful cyclist mentality.

Your posts ignore the fact that even narrow tarmacked paths are dangerous. Three bike widths is nowhere near wide enough for a bike path to be safe. A bike path, in order to be safe, ought to be at least 10ft wide - 20ft if it's bi-directional. No bike path I've ever seen meets that criterion. The road meets it perfectly. I see no reason to risk life and limb cycling on a third rate track when there are perfectly good roads everywhere.


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> Can you back these statements up with some reliable data?


 
Sure:
http://john-s-allen.com/research/berlin_1987/index.html
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Moritz1.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9542542#
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457599000287
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/Accident-Study.pdf
http://etcproceedings.org/paper/the-roots-of-driver-behaviour-towards-cyclists
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle tracks and lanes.pdf
http://vbn.aau.dk/files/14344951/agerholm_et_al._bicycle_paths.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433206
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/1111_TRL_PPR580-Cycle-infra-safety_rpt.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845962
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866/?tool=pubmed
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r.../report_infrastructure_and_cyclist_safety.htm

1987 Grüne Radler review: Police Bicycle Crash Study (Berlin, Germany)
"...with increasing experience, it became ever clearer that the sidepaths are dangerous - more dangerous than riding in the roadway. There is a simple reason for this: the design and location of the sidepaths conflict with the most important principle of traffic safety, the slogan 'Visibility is safety'."

1997 Moritz: A Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters (USA and Canada)
Measurement bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the accident site data appears to be flawed - many of the accidents taking place while on bicycle paths or lanes were considered to be on the roadway because only the final crash site was considered.

1998 Aultman-Hall: Commuter Cyclist On- and Off-Road Incident Rates (Ottawa-Carlton, Canada)
"The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest it is safest to cycle on-road followed by off-road paths and trails, and finally least safe on sidewalks... Results suggest a need to discourage sidewalk cycling, and to further investigate the safety of off-road paths/trails."

1999 Aultman-Hall: Bicycle Commuter Safety Rates (Toronto, Canada)
"The relative rates for falls and injuries suggest these events are least common on-road followed by off-road paths, and finally most common on sidewalks... These rates suggest a need for detailed analysis of sidewalk and off-road path bicycle safety."

1999 Franklin: Two Decades of the Redway Cycle Paths (Milton Keynes, UK)
"...the most alarming experience of the Redways is their accident record. Far from realising gains in safety, they have proved over many years to be consistently less safe than even the 'worst case' grid roads for adult cyclists of average competence. This is not an accolade for the grid roads, for their safety performance is not good in relation to lower speed roads of more traditional design. But the segregated Redways have proved to be worse. "

2001 Wachtel: Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections (Palo Alto, California, USA)
"Bicyclists on a sidewalk or bicycle path incur greater risk than those on the roadway (on average 1.8 times as great), most likely because of blind conflicts at intersections... intersections, construed broadly, are the major point of conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles. Separation of bicycles and motor vehicles leads to blind conflicts at these intersections."

2007 Jensen: Bicycle Tracks and Lanes, a Before - After Study (Copenhagen, Denmark)
"The safety effects of bicycle tracks in urban areas are an increase of about 10 percent in both crashes and injuries. The safety effects of bicycle lanes in urban areas are an increase of 5 percent in crashes and 15 percent in injuries. Bicyclists’ safety has worsened on roads where bicycle facilities have been implemented."

2008 Agerholm: Traffic Safety on Bicycle Paths (Western Denmark)
"the main results are that bicycle paths impair traffic safety and this is mainly due to more accidents at intersections."

2009 Daniels: Injury crashes with bicyclists at roundabouts (Flanders, Belgium)
"Regarding all injury crashes with bicyclists, roundabouts with cycle lanes appear to perform significantly worse compared to... other design types"

2009 Reynolds: The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature
Cherry picking data: review claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but the review cherry picks and misrepresents data - only the 2009 Daniels study (out of 26 studies reviewed) concerned bicycle specific infrastructure safety, and the review misrepresented its findings.

2011 Lusk: Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street (Montreal, Canada)
Selection bias: study claims increased safety on bicycle specific infrastructure, but its street comparisons are flawed - the streets compared were in no way similar other than their general geographic location. Busy downtown streets with multiple distractions per block were twinned with bicycle tracks on quieter roads with fewer intersections and fewer distractions.

2011 Reid: Infrastructure and Cyclist Safety (UK)
"...evidence suggests that the points at which segregated networks intersect with highways offer heightened risk, potentially of sufficient magnitude to offset the safety benefits of removing cyclists from contact with vehicles in other locations."

John Franklin also has a more extensive list available here, without direct quotes but with his commentary:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html


Also:
http://labreform.org/blunders/index.html
http://bicyclesafe.com/
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Maybe because some of us do not have your exceptional bike riding skills? I know that if I was a driver on a dual carriage way at rush hour, with the "cycling me" poodling along at modest speed, I would certainly swear at myself
> Why antagonize motorists if it's avoidable? There are perfectly good cycling facilities I can used in my area, might add a few minutes to my journey, so much more relaxing ride home when I'm tired from work.


 
Your response appears mired in 'cyclist inferiority' rhetoric. Firstly, I do not have 'exceptional bike riding skills'. I realize this is how many bike facility advocates choose to demonize road cycling advocates, but it doesn't wash with me. My average speed is 10mph - hardly an 'immodest' speed. As for 'antagonizing motorists', if they get 'antagonized by my lawful and careful use of the roadway, that is entirely their problem. As for 'perfectly good cycling facilities', if you're talking about bike paths and lanes, 'perfectly good' ones don't exist


----------



## snorri (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Sure:


 You wasted your time and mine with these links, these are reports of studies, many old and foreign and of little relevance to the UK roads network, and I could find no data to back up your earlier claims.
You say that a 10ft wide cycle path is unsafe, but when cycling on the roads motor traffic at 70mph will be overtaking much closer than 10feet from your elbow. You find this quite acceptable?


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> There were three pages of posts in that link. You didn't direct me to your specific posts until later - you just said that 'some of these are usable'. Your own posts in the link showed shale paths with leaves strewn on them. As for User, I have him on ignore, presumably because I find him to be well entrenched in the fearful cyclist mentality.
> 
> Your posts ignore the fact that even narrow tarmacked paths are dangerous. Three bike widths is nowhere near wide enough for a bike path to be safe. A bike path, in order to be safe, ought to be at least 10ft wide - 20ft if it's bi-directional. No bike path I've ever seen meets that criterion. The road meets it perfectly. I see no reason to risk life and limb cycling on a third rate track when there are perfectly good roads everywhere.


In the reply to which you are replying I referred to the experience I had related to you not to the link I had referred you to. You have however had the chance to look at the posts which I made on the link, and if you think that those are shale paths I suggest you look again. As regards the leaves, you're right there are, you may notice however an absence of man hole covers, McDonalds wrappers, diesel patches and cars. It's a pity you have User on ignore, some of his examples are smashing, does it work if I quote him? I'll try that at the end.
I'm not sure of the width of the path I've posted about, I'd guess it was around 8ft or so, bit narrower here a little wider there. Please explain why you need so much room, at the risk of being facetious are you perhaps a bit wobbly on your bike, perhaps it's you that suffers from nerves which is why you feel you need so much space, particularly it would seem when other vehicles are present, 20ft.....really?
BTW could you show me where I said "some of these are suitable" I thought I said "have a look at some of these, they seem pretty usable to me."  
[QUOTE 1913503, member: 45"]These are all different facilities....


















This one is my favourite. It saves *nine miles* of normal road cycling. Why would anyone not be able to use this?...



[/quote]


----------



## Ian Cooper (1 Jul 2012)

I didn't waste my time. I copied and pasted from a report I did months ago about bike infrastructure. You may be wasting your time, but you wouldn't be if you read the studies or my summaries of them.

Old and irrelevant? For goodness sake, they are the latest studies available! It's not as if a study gets done every month, you know. Sometimes years go by without this issue being studied. The latest of the studies I cited was done in London last year! How much more recent or relevant would it take to convince you? I suspect that if a study proving my point was done this very minute in your neighborhood, you'd still be claiming it was too old and irrelevant. I can assure you, there were no studies done yesterday or this morning! Or if there were, they haven't been published yet. Clearly, you have a cycling inferiority agenda, and you're willing to steamroller over anything to forward your outdated views - views that the studies show to be hazardous.


----------



## MrJamie (1 Jul 2012)

Too many links to address right now, although I have looked through them. Interestingly the NCBI one says cycling has many more incidents per km than other forms of transport if i understand correctly, which would make sense given the relatively shorter journeys covered.

The CycleCraft document about Milton Keynes is an interesting one ive read a fair amount about. The vast majority of Redway incidents are at intersections with roads and occasionally bike vs bike at Redway intersections, virtually all of which are caused by people cycling like idiots. A number of times ive tried to safely catch up a commuter cyclist only to repeatedly lose distance when they dont bother braking to cross roads and I have to slow to ~5mph because i dont want to be one of your stats. Its also very easy to plot a route of mixed Redways and residential roads that involves a minimum of these junctions. The statistics imho only show a trend of people not cycling carefully enough when crossing roads. The difference being that cycling on the 60 and 70mph roads where people frequently drive 80-100mph especially in the evenings, takes the control out of your hands and is jut generally unpleasant.

It would be silly to choose between a particular cycle path and road option based on national or global statistics.


----------



## Nihal (1 Jul 2012)

Well,in case,theres no pavement.............no not the gutter


----------



## MrJamie (1 Jul 2012)

Nihal said:


> Well,in case,theres no pavement.............no not the gutter


 I guess noone rides in the gutter in India


----------



## snorri (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> and you're willing to steamroller over anything to forward your outdated views


 As you clearly wish to offend rather than discuss the issue, I think there is no point in me contibuting further to this thread.


----------



## Nihal (1 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> I guess noone rides in the gutter in India


Nah,nobody rides the gutter,but there are chances of falling into one,luckly i haven't.Ususlly if a bus attack me in the mrning i immediately switch to something i call an "inside "lane,a rocky non-asphalted area right next to the outer lane.Those MTB tyres are the only thing that keep me alive there


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Jul 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> Your response appears mired in 'cyclist inferiority' rhetoric. Firstly, I do not have 'exceptional bike riding skills'. I realize this is how many bike facility advocates choose to demonize road cycling advocates, but it doesn't wash with me. My average speed is 10mph - hardly an 'immodest' speed. As for 'antagonizing motorists', if they get 'antagonized by my lawful and careful use of the roadway, that is entirely their problem. As for 'perfectly good cycling facilities', if you're talking about bike paths and lanes, 'perfectly good' ones don't exist


 
Ok, don't wanna fight with you  I said "in my area" there a good cycling facilities" can't speak for other areas.
10 mph is my average too: I'm akin to the street sweeping machine thingmy. As said thingmy, at peak times I have no business riding on a dual carriageway, cars, buses, vans fast allover the place. For my own safety. Given that parallel to the road there is a shared path I can use. Considering that I'll be the one squashed, beeped at, generally get stressed.
Street sweeping machine thingmy:

Edit: picture does not show, but you know what I mean ...


----------



## Bobario (1 Jul 2012)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Maybe because some of us do not have your exceptional bike riding skills? I know that if I was a driver on a dual carriage way at rush hour, with the "cycling me" poodling along at modest speed, I would certainly swear at myself
> Why antagonize motorists if it's avoidable? There are perfectly good cycling facilities I can used in my area, might add a few minutes to my journey, so much more relaxing ride home when I'm tired from work.


 
I agree with Pat on this one, a couple of times I've been held up by cyclists holding the primary position when theres been no need for it. I often mutter to myself "I wouldnt ride in that position on this road". I try not to obstruct motorists wherever possible, hence the need to use the pavement and pedestrian crossings occasionally. I use the cycle path if there is one, and try to stay out of everybodys way. That way I dont get run over and the car drivers get an unobstructed lane to use. And a cycle lane need only be wide enough for two bikes to pass, maybe they ride bigger bikes in the states?


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913811, member: 45"]Which of these say that the only safer way of getting around than cycling is on the bus??[/quote]
You'll have to shout louder than that User, you're on ignore, remember?


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

I'm not sure I quite understand it either, I'm sure it must make reading some threads very frustrating.


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> As you clearly wish to offend rather than discuss the issue, I think there is no point in me contibuting further to this thread.


I think that neatly summarises the thread, which seems to be going nowhere fast. Any chance that we could draw a line under the differences and move on?


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> I think that neatly summarises the thread, which seems to be going nowhere fast. Any chance that we could draw a line under the differences and move on?


Whilst we appear to have moved away from the op somewhat, I thought the thread was generally polite and was moving in a direction I found quite interesting, however, if this is the will of the council......


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> however, if this is the will of the council......


Not the council at all, just a comment from an outside observer.

It seemed to have got a bit circular, and many responses were based on preconceptions rather than responding to points which had been made and photos which had been posted.

I wouldn't want to stifle anything that was still generating interest but I do think that some of the individual responses were highlighting intransigence rather than a willingness to contribute positively.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> Not the council at all, just a comment from an outside observer.


I know, sorry Norm, it was a movie quote


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

I was wondering if that was Star Wars or Star Trek, I think the former but I wasn't certain enough to comment.

As an aside (and here is a side-track which would probably warrant a thread of its own), I've never seen any of the Star Wars films. I've seen clips, obviously, but never more than about 15-20 minutes at a time.


----------



## Mugshot (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> I was wondering if that was Star Wars or Star Trek, I think the former but I wasn't certain enough to comment.
> 
> As an aside (and here is a side-track which would probably warrant a thread of its own), I've never seen any of the Star Wars films. I've seen clips, obviously, but never more than about 15-20 minutes at a time.


 
It's from Lord of the Rings (Fellowship of the Ring)
I think you're thinking of Princess Leia when she say to Han "I am NOT a committee!" Episode 5 (Geek mode off)

 Never seen Star Wars?!


----------



## HLaB (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> I was wondering if that was Star Wars or Star Trek, I think the former but I wasn't certain enough to comment.
> 
> As an aside (and here is a side-track which would probably warrant a thread of its own), I've never seen any of the Star Wars films. I've seen clips, obviously, but never more than about 15-20 minutes at a time.


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

Mugshot said:


> It's from Lord of the Rings (Fellowship of the Ring)


Oh... never seen that one either. The strange thing is that LOTR and Star Wars are exactly the sort of films that I should love (Star Trek, Blakes Seven, Dr Who, Avatar, etc) and we've got them all on DVD.

I've just, well, never watched them.


----------



## potsy (1 Jul 2012)

Norm said:


> Oh... never seen that one either. The strange thing is that LOTR and Star Wars are exactly the sort of films that I should love (Star Trek, Blakes Seven, Dr Who, Avatar, etc) and we've got them all on DVD.
> 
> I've just, well, never watched them.


Too scared?


----------



## Norm (1 Jul 2012)

potsy said:


> Too scared?


I can find an emot which holds up a hand, and another which holds up a thumb, I'm still looking for one which holds up two fingers, though.


----------



## Accy cyclist (1 Jul 2012)

I went out this afternoon and i'm not embarrassed to admit that i used the pavement twice. The first time was when i came to a main roundabout that has junctions leading onto and off a motorway. No way would i go round it, i just don't trust motorists to signal correctly or give me time to swap lanes etc. To their credit the council have fitted lights with signs telling pedestrians AND CYCLISTS whether they can cross safely or not, so i presume that they expect cyclists to use the pavement and not the dangerous roundabout.
The other time was when i was approaching some lights after a knackering climb. I didn't have the stamina to get to the lights before they changed to green, so i was there trying to go straight ahead but the impatient idiot behind me was revving like mad, i didn't trust him so i pulled up onto the pavement where i got off my bike and used the "Safe to cross"lighting system.
I always assume that the fat, cyclist hating,couldn't ride a bike to save his life but thinks he's so macho because he has a big engine in his car, slob is not going to bother about my welfare, so i choose the safest way of crossing major junctions, which sometimes means having to use the pedestrian crossing.


----------



## junglegusset (2 Jul 2012)

I sometimes cycle on pavements, I am very careful which ones, and moderate my speed accordingly. So in some ways I'm glad it's not illegal. However I live in a terrace house which opens out onto a normal width pavement, the road is lined with cars of course, on both sides and there is only enough room for one car to pass through the middle. It is tempting for cyclists to ride down the pavement because it's always a little bit close for comfort passing between an oncoming car and the parked cars. So there have been quite a few times when myself or Mrs Junglegusset have stepped out of our front door without due care and attention and nearly been hit by a cyclist (and I use that term loosely) who is tonking down the pavement. Worse still is there are also some local adult individuals who insist on riding trikes (yes, trikes) down the pavement as well. If you are walking towards them they seem to expect that you will just get out of their way, which means stepping into the road between two parked cars. I've seen these ladies triking around the locality one of them NEVER RIDES ON THE ROAD. The capital letters hopefully signify to the reader that this irritates me somewhat. Now that I discover I can't citizens arrest her makes things even worse. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## junglegusset (2 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1911948, member: 45"]......... instructed the police to only fine those who are causing a problem,[/quote]

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## MrJamie (2 Jul 2012)

This is pretty much the only footpath I ever cycle on http://goo.gl/maps/f8oP 

Its probably not *that* bad, but because theres no turnings for 1.5 miles people go stupidly fast down there. Its also one of those roads where its too wide for drivers to need to slow to overtake you, that crosshatched "no overtake" area actually works really well to give drivers enough room to close pass you at 80mph if you try to ride in a decent secondary  

The path is hardly ever used, except the very occasional walker or cyclist and visability is great, so it makes sense to me as long as im curtious ill take my chances with a fine.


----------



## the_mikey (3 Jul 2012)

[QUOTE 1913503, member: 45"]These are all different facilities....








This one is my favourite. It saves *nine miles* of normal road cycling. Why would anyone not be able to use this?...



[/quote]



I am familiar with both of those cycle paths! And I'd much rather use those than the road alternative, I can't think of any good reason you'd want to ride on the road instead of the cycle path in both of those cases (outside of the obvious ones like it's not going where I want to go)..


----------

